Administrative discretion in service matters prevails, and employees cannot claim relief from a secondment scheme as a matter of right.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated

02.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.11440/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition by stating in paragraphs No.9 and 10 as under:

“9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed off on the following terms:

(i) The relief sought for in the writ petition is not granted. However, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall ensure that soon after they review the secondment scheme and if it provides for deputation to any other organization, the first case that they shall take up for deputing any of its employees, to any deputational posts under the Central Government or Public Sector undertakings, shall be the case of the petitioner. This shall be complied strictly without any exception.

10. It is needless to mention that if the post of Joint Director (Materials management) in the respondent No.4 remains vacant as on the date of review of secondment scheme by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, then they shall take immediate steps to relieve the petitioner by maintaining his lien in his current position.”

2. The brief facts to be noted are, pursuant to the advertisement published by respondent No.4 to fill various posts, the appellant desirous for applying for one post had made a request to the Controlling Authority to grant permission to apply to the post of Joint Director. A no-objection certificate (‘NOC’ for short) was issued to the appellant to apply for the post of Joint Director on deputation basis. Respondent No.4 informed the Controlling Authority about the selection of the appellant to the post of Joint Director (Materials Management) on deputation basis. The appellant accordingly made a representation and requested the Controlling Authority to relieve him from Mysuru on or before 31.03.2025 to take up the assignment on deputation and to hold the lien on his post. The appellant was informed by his Controlling Authority that the Corporate Office, Bengaluru had refused to accept his request to relieve him to join the post at respondent No.4. It was this action, which was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge.

3. The case of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that, the relieving of the appellant was depending upon the exigencies of service/administrative convenience in the respondents’ Company. Thus according to them, deputation is not a matter of right, but was at the sole discretion of the Controlling Authority and such discretion should be exercised depending upon the exigencies.

4. The learned Single Judge has, also in paragraphs No.7 and 8, stated as under:

“7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, benefit of the secondment scheme could not be claimed as a matter of right by the employees and approval of such cases would depend upon the availability of man power and would solely be at the discretion of the respondents. This fact was made known to the petitioner even while no objection certificate was given to the petitioner, while seeking employment on deputation as Joint Director (Materials Management) at the respondent No.4. It is also relevant to note that when the application of the petitioner was forwarded by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the respondent No.4, it was specifically mentioned "his relieving under secondment scheme of the company for a period not exceeding three years, is subject to approval of competent authority and would depend primarily upon the exigencies of service/administration convenience." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a certificate in the form which is prescribed in Annexure IV to the secondment scheme, shows that the applicant if selected would be relieved immediately and that therefore, the secondment scheme will have to be examined in the context of certificate forwarded by th