0

Deputationists do not have any inherent right of being considered for absorption in the borrowing department: High Court of J&K and Ladakh

The law regarding deputation is well settled and the necessity of deputation which arises is always in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The deputationists do not have any inherent right to be absorbed in the borrowing department as held by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K ad Ladakh through a learned bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma in the case of Talvir Singh Vs Union of India and others [WP(C) No. 1439/2021 CM Nos. 5766, 5767, 6018, 6019 & 6127 of 2021].

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) was sent on deputation to Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “CBI”) Jammu The deputation of the petitioner was initially for a period of three years but the same was extended for further period of two years. The petitioner, subsequently, appeared in the Personal Assessment Test 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 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.

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.

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. The CBI Headquarter New Delhi vides its circular 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 it was informed that MHA 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/organization.

The Hon’ble High Court after hearing both the parties, relied on the Judgments in case of Umapati Choudhary V. State of Bihar and another, 1999(4) SCC 659 and State of Punjab and others V. Inder Singh and others, (1997) 8 SCC 372, to state that “The law regarding deputation is well settled and the necessity of deputation which arises is always in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The deputationists do not have any inherent right to be absorbed in the borrowing department. It depends on the consent of theparent department as well as the department in which absorption is sought.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat