Point of Law: Deputationists do not have any inherent right of being considered for absorption in the borrowing department. The consent of both the departments for the same is a condition precedent.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner while working as Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) was sent on deputation to Central Bureau of Investigation (in short ‘CBI’) Jammu, pursuant to CBI Headquarter letter dated 01.03.2013. The deputation of the petitioner was initially for a period of three years but the same was extended for further period of two years.

2. The petitioner, subsequently, appeared in the Personal Assessment Test on 09.09.2017 for his absorption in the CBI, and was successful in the screening test and, accordingly, shortlisted for the same. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for extension of his deputation period vide representation dated 08.12.2017 and respondent No. 4 informed the CBI Headquarter that the petitioner’s case is under consideration for absorption and NOC has been sought from parent department. The case of the petitioner alongwith some other persons was recommended by the B.S.F on 18.01.2019 to respondent No. 1 for grant of permanent absorption in CBI w.e.f 18.10.2017, subject to relaxation. The respondent No. 4, however, on 13.07.2021 issued order for repatriation of 69 Constables of CAPF including petitioner as the MHA had conveyed refusal of NOCs.

3. The petitioner has assailed the order of his repatriation to his parent department dated 13.07.2021 and also the order No. 254/2021 dated 14.07.2021 directing him to report for further duties to Director General, BSF, New Delhi. He is aggrieved of these orders on the ground that the same are in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also submits that he has rendered outstanding service for more than 08 years with the respondent-CBI and has also cleared the Personal Assessment Test for his permanent absorption. He, accordingly, applied for extension of his deputation to the concerned authorities for which NOC was given by the parent department and a recommendation was also made in his favour. According to him, the respondent-CBI have not adopted a uniform criteria for absorption of all the eligible persons in their organization. They have been absorbing similarly situated persons but have denied the same benefit to the petitioner. The respondents all along have been regularizing the overstay of the similarly situated persons by granting post facto NOC also in their favour for permanent absorption but have arbitrarily refused the same to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner continued working with the CBI even after the expiry of his tenure on 24.08.2018, therefore, had a legitimate expectation of his absorption in CBI.

4. In the objections, the stand of the respondent-CBI is that the petitioner does not have any inherent right of permanent absorption with their organization. It is further submitted that petitioner joined CBI, ACB, Jammu on 29.04.2013 as Constable from Border Security Force on deputation basis for an initial period of 03 years and subsequently, requested that his deputation tenure be extended for further two years i.e. 4th and 5th year up to 2018. His deputation tenure was accordingly extended for further one year i.e. 4th year upto 28.04.2017 and for 5th year i.e. upto 28.04.2018. The tenure of the petitioner expired on 24.08.2018 but his case for permanent absorption in CBI was under process, the petitioner, therefore, submitted an application for extension of his deputation tenure for further 6th and 7th years also. The CBI Headquarter New Delhi, however, vide its circular dated 03.09.2019 directed to repatriate all overstaying personnel from CBI on completion of approved deputation tenure. In this regard, clarification was sought regarding repatriation of petitioner from CBI, Headquarter, New Delhi and vide letter dated 13.07.2021 it was informed that MHA vide communication dated 12.07.2021 has conveyed its refusal for grant of NOCs in respect of 69 Constables including petitioner and directed to repatriate them immediately and also to report back to their parent cadre/organizati