The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer on deputation must comply with the consent of the employee and the eligibility conditions for filling up posts on deputation basis.

1. The writ petitioners are the applicants in O.A.No.310/00098/2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and they made a challenge to the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the fourth respondent, in and by which they were transferred from Sub Regional Office, Tirunelveli to Zonal Training Institute (ZTI), South Zone, Chennai on transfer by deputation. The said Original Application came to be dismissed on merits on 26.02.2014 and aggrieved by the same, had preferred this writ petition.

2. The petitioners herein was appointed as Social Security Assistants (SSA), vide orders dated 15.09.2009 and 14.08.2008 respectively and after successful completion of probation, they were confirmed, vide orders dated 26.10.2012 and 22.03.2011 respectively with effect from 21.10.2011 and 21.08.2010 respectively. The first petitioner, after recruitment, was initially posted at the Regional Office at Chennai and the second petitioner was initially posted at the Sub Regional Office at Puducherry and on their representations, they were transferred to the Sub Regional Office at Tirunelveli on 01.12.2010 and 19.11.2010 respectively.

3. The fourth respondent, vide impugned order dated 31.12.2013, transfered them on deputation on public interest to serve in the Zonal Training Institute (ZTI), South Zone, Chennai initially for a period of one year. It was contended by the petitioners herein before the Tribunal that ZTI is an independent organization under the control of the National Academy for Training and Research in Social Security (NATRSS) fifth respondent herein and the staffs workings therein form a separate cadre. It was further contended by the petitioners herein before the Tribunal that the fourth respondent have no jurisdiction to transfer them to ZTI and as per Regulation 5A of the Employees Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1962, transfer of staff from one region to another region can be made only with the approval of the first respondent and further that deputation is a tripartite contract involving the employer, the lending authority and the borrowing authority and the consent of all the three parties is required and since the service in ZTI is a separate service and that the staffs working therein form a separate cadre, they cannot be transferred on deputation and therefore, prayed for quashment of the said order.

4. The official respondents had filed their counter stating among other things that NATRSS was established in the year 1990 by the Employees' Provident Fund Organization at New Delhi and it emerged as a premier institution involved in training, research and in the social security sector and it is having four Zonal Training Institutes at Faridabad, Kolkata, Ujjain and Chennai and one Sub-Zonal Training Institute at Shillong and the ZTI at Chennai caters to the needs for imparting training to staff numbering approximately 7900 in the cadre of Group B, C & D of Employees' Provident Fund Organization posted in Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamilnadu, Goad and Puducherry. It is further stated in the counter that clerical posts in Zonal Training Institute are filled up on deputation by issuing notifications and a notification dated 29.06.2013 was issued for filling up the post of 4 numbers of Social Security Assistants and since only one application has been received and even he has also turned down the offer by citing personal reasons, there were acute shortage of staffs and it was further found that in Tamil Nadu region there was surplus staff at Sub Regional Office at Tirunelveli and taking into account the lack of staffs in ZTI, a decision was taken to transfer two persons from Tirunelveli to Chennai on deputation basis, initially for a period of one year and taking into account the larger public interest, the impugned order came to be passed. It was further contended by the official respondents that the transfer was ordered by the second respondent, who is the c