The court affirmed that an employee does not possess a fundamental right to claim deputation but is entitled to fair consideration; claims of discrimination must be substantiated with clear evidence.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.: (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the letter dated 2nd February, 2022, whereby Respondent No.2 rejected the request of the petitioner to forward his application for deputation to the office of Respondent No.3. Petitioner further seeks quashing of the impugned Policy decision letter dated 10th January, 2018. Petitioner also seeks directions to Respondent No.2 to forward the application of the petitioner to the office of Respondent No.3 and upon his final selection to the post of "Senior Secretariat Assistant", issue final "Vigilance Clearance Certificate" and "No Objection Certificate" in favour of the Petitioner to enable him to join the office of Respondent No.3.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that initially the petitioner had joined Border Road Organisation [BRO] as LDC in 2008 and in 2019 he was promoted to the post of UDC. He states that pursuant to the advertisement published in the Employment News dated 18-24th December, 2021, the Petitioner, being an eligible candidate, applied for the post of Senior Secretariat Assistant on deputation basis with the Anthropological Survey of India. He further states that the Petitioner, vide letter dated 11th January, 2022, requested the Parent department i.e. BRO through proper channel to forward his application for deputation along with appropriate NOC.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the application of the Petitioner for deputation was forwarded by the Commanding Officer to the appropriate authority along with all connecting papers including recommendation, etc. However, he states that the Respondents rejected the request of the Petitioner to forward his application vide the impugned order dated 2nd February, 2022. He states that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected relying on the provisions of the Policy decision letter dated 10th January, 2018 which does not have the sanction from Ministry of Defence.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also emphasises that certain other similarly situated personnel have been issued No Objection Certificates by the Respondents. He also relies upon the order dated 1st February, 2022 passed by Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) 454/2022, wherein the High Court had directed the BRO to forward the Petitioner's application therein to Anthropological Survey of India (Respondent No.3 herein).

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has very limited scope for promotion in his present organisation since the number of promotional posts is very limited and the Petitioner would have a higher chance of securing promotion to the next higher rank of Administrative Officer in the new organization.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned order is highly discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal, and the Petitioner has been singled out, which led to the filing of the present writ petition.

7. This Court in Kamlesh Kumar Jha vs. Directorate General Border Roads and Ors. in W.P.(C) 1306/2022 decided on 3rd February, 2022 has held that an employee of BRO has no fundamental right to claim deputation to any other organisation or department. He has only a right of fair consideration in accordance with the policy and needs of the organisation.

8. In the present case, apart from making a bald assertion that similarly placed officers have been allowed by the respondent-BRO to proceed on deputation while the Petitioner's application has been rejected, the Petitioner has not provided the details of those officers as to how his case for being allowed to proceed on deputation is superior to them. This court is not expected to indulge in a fishing and roving inquiry to determine the comparative merit and demerit of the cases of these officers, especially in their absence.

9. The plea based on Article 14 is completely vague and without any merit. In the present petition,