Back
2020 Supreme(All) 914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJAN ROY, J.
Saurabh Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Unique Identification Auth. Of India Thru C.E.O & Ors. - Respondents
Service Single No.8234 of 2020
Decided on : 01-10-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shireesh Kumar
For the Respondent: Suryabhan, Zoheb Hossain
Point of Law: Court has to interfere only when the order is passed arbitrarily and mala fide. If there was some material which shows some negligence or conduct of the petitioner and becomes the basis of decision of the respondents to repatriate such an officer, it cannot be called as a stigmatic, more so when the impugned order is innocuous and silent on the conduct of the petitioners. Once I take the aforesaid view, various judgments cited by the petitioners may not be of any consequence. I have already referred to the constitutional Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.H. Phadnis (supra) and observed that even as per that judgment a person who is unsuitable can be sent back to his parent department.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Adhaar (Targeted delivery of Financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016 – Sections 54, 21, 18 – Unique Identification Authority of India (appointment of officers and employees) Regulations, 2020 – Regulation 2 – Curtailment of deputation and repatriation – By means of this Writ Petition the petitioner has challenged the curtailment of his deputation and his repatriation by the Unique Identification Authority of India to his parent corporation namely Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation, Jaipur – The petitioner has challenged two orders, one dated 16.03.2020 which is the notice of his repatriation and by an amendment in the writ petition another order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of UIDAI rejecting the petitioner's representation against the order has also been challenged –
Finding of the Court:
Counsel for the petitioner did, that even after passing of the order of repatriation petitioner is entitled to be considered for absorption is unacceptable and contrary to Regulation 5 which speaks of an offer of absorption to be given to such officers and employees "who are holding any post provided under the Schedule", therefore, a deputationist who has been repatriated to his parent organisation is not entitled to be considered as he does not hold any post referred in the Schedule to the regulation under UIDAI which includes the post of Deputy Director on which the petitioner was earlier working and as such he cannot be offered absorption, specially as this Court is upholding this repatriation. – This plea is also rejected. – Court does not find any such requirement of seeking approval of the Chairman, UIDAI or the Minister of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India before repatriating any officer or employee in the Regulations, 2020. This plea is also rejected. – Decision to repatriate the petitioner has been taken by the Chief Executive Officer who was competent to take such decision under Regulation 2(1)(b) of Regulations, 2020 read with Section 18 (4) of the Act, 2016. – Order passed by the Chief Executive Officer on the representation of the petitioner also does not require any interference. – This is not a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for interference with the impugned order in favour of the petitioner. –
Result:Writ Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. By means of this Writ Petition the petitioner has challenged the curtailment of his deputation and his repatriation by the Unique Identification Authority of India (herein after referred as UIDAI) to his parent corporation namely Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation, Jaipur (herein after referred as MMTC). The petitioner has challenged two orders, one dated 16.03.2020 which is the notice of his repatriation and by an amendment in the writ petition another order dated 28.05.2020 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of UIDAI rejecting the petitioner's representation against the order dated 16.03.2020 has also been challenged.
2. The petitioner is an employee of MMTC, Jaipur. In pursuance to office memorandum dated 10.10.2013 inviting applications from eligible persons for filling up various posts including that of Deputy Director in the UIDAI on deputation basis at its regional office, Lucknow, the petitioner also applied and was selected for such deputation. He was appointed on deputation, consequent to his selection, as Deputy Director at the regional office of UIDAI, Lucknow vide a order dated 05.02.2014 for a period of 3 years from the date of taking over charge of the post or until further orders, whichever event takes place earlier. The terms and conditions of deputation during his tenure of deputation in UIDAI were to be governed by the Department of Personnel and Training (herein after referred as DoPT) OM dated17.06.2010 and this fact was mentioned in the order of deputation dated 05.02.2014 as also the OM dated 10.10.2013. In pursuance to the aforesaid, the petitioner joined at the regional office, Lucknow in 2014 itself. The deputation period was extended sometime in 2017/2018. In August, 2019 the opposite party no. 2 sought explanation from the petitioner regarding his day to day work and the reasons for non submission of reports on time. The petitioner submitted a written reply on 30.08.2019, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-10 to supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The reply of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and a comment was recorded by the opposite party no. 2 who was the head of the regional office at Lucknow to the effect-"not so much that reports will not go on time. The explanation not acceptable."
3. Be that as it may, on 21.01.2020, the Unique Identification Authority of India (appointment of officers and employees) Regulations, 2020 framed under Section 21 (1) read with Subsection 1 of Section 54 and Clause (x) of Sub-section 2 of Section 54 of the Adhaar (Targeted delivery of Financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016 (herein after referred as Act, 2016) , as amended vide the Adhaar and other laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 (herein after referred as Act, 2019), were notified.
4. On 29.01.2020, applications were invited from eligible candidates for permanent absorption in the cadre of UIDAI under Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 2020 but with the clear stipulation that mere fulfillment of the eligibility criteria by a candidate and submission of application form by him/her would not confer a right to get him/her absorbed in the cadre of UIDAI which shall be contingent upon the recommendations of the selection Committee etc. as mentioned in Paragraph 4 of the said office memorandum dated 29.01.2020, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner claiming himself to be eligible for such permanent absorption is said to have applied on 07.02.2020 which was forwarded by his superior officer on 12.02.2020.
5. The undisputed fact is that the absorption process did not take place and it was held up in view of certain queries made by the Officers' from the UIDAI which in turn made queries in this regard from the concerned departments but the said queries had not been resolved.
6. It is not out of place to mention that 18.02.2020 was the last date for submitting an application for consideration for permanent absorption as
