Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
GO-004293N Shri Suryawanshi Pandurang Sayaji, Son of Late Sayaji Pandurang Suryawanshi –Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, represented by Joint Secretary (BR), Ministry of Defence [earlier designated as Secretary (BRDB)], Room No.418, “B” Wing, 4th Floor, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO.2985 of 2022
Decided On : 12-05-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Petitioner’s case is that respondent (Chairman, DRDO) published an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 63 posts of Private Secretary on deputation basis – Petitioner’s grievance is that are not forwarding his application for post of Private Secretary on deputation basis to the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), proforma.
Finding of the court:
Petitioner has taken a stand that there exists deficiency in cadre of Stenographers, same is only a vague averment which has not been substantiated – In any event, fact remains that there exists a deficiency in grade of Private Secretaries to which petitioner belongs – With regard to contention of petitioner’s counsel that Policy/SOP cannot be applied for rejecting the petitioner’s application, this Court is of view that there is nothing to show that said Policy/SOP cannot be made applicable to petitioner’s case, inasmuch as settled law with regard to deputation in any event requires consent of employer to give its consent to employee to go on deputation to another Organisation – As has been stated earlier, cadre of Private Secretaries being 27.59% deficient, said reason for not allowing petitioner’s case cannot be said to be irrational.
Results: Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent No.5 (Chairman, DRDO) published an advertisement dated 19-25.03.2022 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 63 posts of Private Secretary on deputation basis. The petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent No.1 to 4 are not forwarding his application for the post of Private Secretary on deputation basis to the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), proforma respondent No.5.
3. Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his application for appointment to the post of Private Secretary on deputation basis to the respondent authorities on 06.04.2022. The respondent No.4 thereafter issued Eligibility Certificate and Sparability Certificate dated 07.04.2022 stating that the petitioner was found eligible to apply for the said post and that the works presently handled by the petitioner would not suffer unduly by his departure.
4. The respondent No.4 [Chief Engineer, HQ CE (P) Udayak] thereafter forwarded the petitioner’s application for the post of Private Secretary in Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) to the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the Director General, Border Roads Organisation (BRO) (respondent No.2) issued the impugned letter dated 26.04.2022 stating that as per the latest Departmental Policy, the application for deputation could not be processed when the deficiency in a particular cadre was more than 15%. The letter also stated that since the present net deficiency in the rank of Private Secretary as on 01.04.2022 was 27.59%, it would not be possible to process the petitioner’s case further. The petitioner’s application was then returned back to the petitioner. The operative portion of the impugned letter dated 26.04.2022 is reproduced below:-
5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the deficiency in the rank of Private Secretary is due to the fault of the respondent Nos.1 to 4, inasmuch as, the post of Private Secretary is to be filled up 100% by promotion. The petitioner should not be made to suffer just because the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not filled up the vacant posts in the cadre of Private Secretary in the BRO. He further submits that it is the fundamental right of every employee to advance his career and an employee must be given ample opportunity to upgrade his career prospect and any action on the part of the respondents in refusing permission to advance his future prospects would be violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that while the petitioner’s application has not been forwarded to the DRDO, the applications of four Stenographers of the BRO were being forwarded to the DRDO to be considered for the post of Private Secretary in terms of the advertisement dated 19-25.03.2022, even though the cadre of Stenographers in the BRO is also having deficiency in the cadre/grade. He further submits that various decisions have been passed by this Court and the Division Bench in similar matters directing the respondent authorities to issue NOC and to forward applications of various employees of BRO, who apply for jobs and posts outside the BRO.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Departmental Policy/SOP dated 20.04.2021, on the basis of which the respondent No.2 has decided not to send the petitioner’s application to the DRDO, does not have the sanction of the Ministry of Defence and since a separate Policy with regard to forwarding of applications alrea
Point of Law : deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee of one Department or cadre or even an Organisation, to another Department or cadre or Organisation and the necessity f....
The court emphasized the positive concept of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the need for adherence to government rules and standards.
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.
The rejection of NOC after selection was deemed illegal and biased, and the petitioner cannot be proceeded for alleged misconduct based on the failure to seek permission before applying for deputatio....
An employee cannot face departmental proceedings based on issues already settled by prior judgments, especially when the employer's actions are deemed biased and illegal.
Point of Law : Article 14 does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by ....
No prior consent required for employee deputation within same Union Territory under Article 52-C, J&K CSR, 1956.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment mode for a government post must adhere to the relevant Recruitment Rules and the concept of deputation, requiring consent a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
