Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on August 29, 2013
Judgment Delivered on September 05, 2013
+ W.P.(C) No.936/2005
ANIL KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.G.D.Gupta, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.K.R.Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
UOI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.V.S.R.Krishna, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated December 07, 2004
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original
Application filed by him was dismissed.
2. The claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal was for quashing
the order dated December 18, 2002, as also another order of the same
date December 18, 2002, whereby he has been repatriated to his parent
department i.e. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of
Commerce (Supply Division), New Delhi. His prayer also included that
a declaration be given by the Tribunal that he should be deemed to have
been absorbed in Indian Railways with effect from March 20, 1995 and
necessary orders in this regard be issued by the Indian Railways.
3. Some of the important facts for deciding this petition are that the
petitioner is an officer of Indian Supply Service, having been appointed
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 1 of 9
on March 01, 1975. While he was working as Deputy Director of
Supply he proceeded on deputation to the post of Deputy Controller of
Stores in the Indian Railways in the pre-revised scale of ` 3500-5000.
He joined the Central Organization for Modernization of Workshops
(COFMOW) in the Indian Railways initially for a period of one year on
March 20, 1989.
4. The term of the deputation was extendable upto three years.
Suffice would it be to state that the term of the deputation of the
petitioner was extended from time to time till March 20, 1995.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that on October 09, 1996, 7 officers
of the Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals (DGS&D) were
considered for absorption by the Railway Board which included the
petitioner also. It was decided that he would be absorbed in Indian
Railways against the post vacated by one Mr.N.Shanker. This aspect was
informed by the Indian Railways to his parent office which it appears
had not accepted the proposal of the Indian Railways. The applicant
accordingly filed Original Application No.2658/1997 before the
Tribunal, inter-alia, seeking a direction for issuing formal orders with
regard to his absorption in the Indian Railways Store Service with effect
from March 20, 1995 with all consequential benefits.
6. The said Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal on
September 02, 2002 with direction to the respondents to re-consider the
absorption of the petitioner in Indian Railways by passing a detailed and
speaking order within a period of four months till then status quo as of
date was directed to be maintained.
7. The respondent passed a speaking order dated December 18, 2002
whereby the claim of the petitioner for absorption in Indian Railways
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 2 of 9
was turned down. It is this order which was impugned by the petitioner
before the Tribunal.
8. It was the stand of the respondents before the Tribunal that there
were clear directions of the Department of Personnel & Training against
further extension of deputations of the petitioner. That apart the
Directorate General of Supplies & Disposal was not agreeing to release
any post for the purpose of absorption in the Indian Railways. Therefore,
it was decided to terminate the deputation of the petitioner with
COFMOW and to repatriate him to DGS&D. Further, it was their stand
that the Indian Railways had proposed that the case of the petitioner
could be considered but there was no provision for absorption in the
rules of the Indian Railways in the post which the petitioner was holding
on deputation. The Department of Supply did not agree to the proposal
of the Indian Railways and the suggestion of the Department of Supply
for absorption of the petitioner against any of the cadre post of Indian
Railways Store Service was not found acceptable by the Indian
Railways.
9. The Tribunal after considering the legal position on an issue of
this nature where a deputationist has no right to seek absorption had
dismissed the Original Application.
10. Mr.G.D.Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner would reiterate the stand taken by the petitioner before the
Tribunal. That apart reliance had been placed on Rule 21(9) of the Indian
Railway Store Service Recruitment Rules, 1969, which inter-alia
stipulates that occasionally recruitment from other service in
consultation with the Commission is permissible. Learned senior
counsel has also filed a statement showing, had petitioner been absorbed
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 3 of 9
in Indian Railways he would have got promotion in Indian Railways at
least to the post of Director (Selection Grade) and Deputy Director
General (SAG) much before he got promoted to posts in said grades in
his parent department of DGS&D.
11. It is noted that the petitioner superannuated on May 31, 2012.
12. We may state here that the real issue which falls for our
consideration is whether the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed in the
Indian Railways in the given facts. The facts are not in dispute.
13. It is true that the case of the petitioner was considered by the
Indian Railways against the post vacated by one Mr.N.Shankar.
Mr.N.Shankar had come on deputation to the Indian Railways along with
the post on which he was working in DGS&D. Mr.N.Shankar got
promotion and he was relieved from the Indian Railways in March,
1995. From March, 1995 to September, 1997 the Department of Supply
did not post any person in place of Mr.N.Shankar. Be that as it may, the
Indian Railways did consider the issue of absorption of the petitioner
against the post vacated by Mr.N.Shankar. The same was not accepted
by the Ministry of Commerce under which DGS&D comes. We are
conscious of the fact that six officers from the DGS&D were posted in
Indian Railways and subsequently absorbed. These six officers are those
who have come to Indian Railways along with their post. In so far as the
petitioner is concerned, he came on deputation not with the post and
therefore this was the reason the petitioner could not be absorbed in the
Indian Railways.
14. It is also a fact that no provision exists in the Indian Railways
Store Service Recruitment Rules, 1969, which contemplates absorption
in the post which the petitioner was holding on deputation. This aspect is
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 4 of 9
of relevance when we are deciding the issue in the context of the relief
prayed for by the petitioner. Without there being a provision in the
Recruitment Rules stipulating absorption of a deputationist the petitioner
could not have been absorbed.
15. That apart, a deputationist has no right to seek absorption. In this
regard after referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court the Tribunal
has held as under:
“18. Reference to the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court in the case of RAMESHWAR PRASAD v.
U.P.RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., 1999 (2) SCSLJ 495
would be inappropriate because therein, the Supreme Court
was concerned with the relevant rules of the Nigam but had
still held that there was no permanent right of absorption to
the deputationist. No such rules have been noticed in the
present case and, therefore, the said decision is
distinguishable.
19. The position in law is well settled and we refer with
advantage to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
RATILAL B. SONI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT
AND OTHERS, AIR 1990 SC 1132 wherein the Supreme
Court held that when a person is on deputation, he could be
reverted to his parent cadre at the relevant time. He does not
get any right to be absorbed on deputation post.
20. Same view had been expressed by the Supreme Court in
the case of UNION OF INDIA v. S.N.PANIKAR, (2001) 10
SCC 520 and it was reiterated in the case of MUNI SINGH
AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF BIHAR, (2002) 9 SCC 485.
The Supreme Court reiterated the earlier view that there is
no enforceable right for being permanently absorbed. It was
held:
“1. .......... Having considered the rival
submissions and also the relevant provisions of
the Rules, we do not see any enforceable right
with the petitioners for being permanently
absorbed though we see sufficient force in the
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 5 of 9
contention of Dr. Dhavan that the appropriate
Government would be well advised to consider
the retention of these petitioners permanently in
the Bureau having regard to the case that they
have already rendered services from 1991 till
1999, and that the Rules themselves contemplate
to man the post on transfer. ......”
21. It is true that there has been a correspondence between
the Ministries but no formal order absorbing the applicant
till date has been passed. Merely because one of the Ministry
was willing at one time, does not give an enforceable right to
the applicant till such time a final order is passed.
22. Other wise also, reverting back to the correspondence to
which we have referred to above, it is obvious that it was
only that the name of the applicant was being considered.
No final order has been passed.
23. We know from the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of BACHHITTAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND
ANOTHER, AIR 1963 SC 395 wherein it was held that
before something amounts to an order of the State
Government, two functions are necessary. The Constitution
requires that action must be taken by the authority concerned
and the order should be passed and communicated to the
person who would be affected by that order before the State
and that person can be bound by that order. No order
absorbing the applicant has been passed. Therefore, he
remained as deputationist without having a right to claim
that he must be absorbed.”
16. Further, even the plea of discrimination would not stand in the
facts of this case since the officers who were absorbed had come on
deputation along with the post, which was not the case of the petitioner.
A post in the Indian Railway Store Service is filled in a particular
manner under the Rules. An incumbent can be appointed in terms of the
Rules in the manner contemplated and not otherwise.
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 6 of 9
17. The Court should also be mindful of the fact that the absorption of
the petitioner would also have serious implications in the cadre
management of Indian Railway Store Service as the same would have
had an effect on the service conditions of the serving officers. No relief
could have been granted to the petitioner without the serving employees
being made a party. In fact, the Indian Railways had not accepted the
suggestion of Department of Supply for absorption of the petitioner
against one of the cadre post of the Indian Railway Store Service. Under
the circumstances there was no option for the Indian Railways to
repatriate the petitioner to his parent department.
18. One aspect which also requires our consideration is that whether
the petitioner could have been absorbed against the post left vacant
pursuant to repatriation of one Mr.C.P.Nimje who had not sought his
absorption in the Indian Railways.
19. This Court vide its order dated April 05, 2011 had directed the
respondent to file affidavit in that regard.
20. The affidavit filed by the respondent would reveal that the
absorption of the petitioner in place of Mr.C.P.Nimje was not considered
acceptable on the reason that the question of seeking nomination of
officer in place of Mr.C.P.Nimje should not arise since the transfer of
officers for absorption has to be treated as final. The question of seeking
fresh option did not arise in view of earlier commitment and
understanding between the Ministry of Railways and Ministry of
Commerce & Industry. The petitioner in his rejoinder to the additional
affidavit filed by the respondent does not dispute such a decision except
saying that „the in action of the respondent with respect to the aforesaid
decision in favour of the petitioner qua the officers is malafidely and
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 7 of 9
arbitrary.‟ It is clear that the process of absorption was one time and
with respect to those officers who had come along with their post and
who had opted for absorption. It also transpires that the post which
became vacant on repatriation of Mr.C.P.Nimje was encadred in the
Indian Railway Store Service. Once encadred, the same has to be filled
in terms of Indian Railway Store Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 which
does not contemplate absorption.
21. We note that in Civil Appeal Nos.368-369/2009 Union of India &
Ors. v. S.A.Khalliq Pasha & Anr., decided on January 13, 2009, the
Supreme Court has held as under:-
“Furthermore, in absence of any statutory rules, an
employee does not have any legal right to be absorbed
in the services. It is so held in Kunal Nanda vs. Union
of India and Anr. 2000 (5) SCC 362, in the following
terms:
“On the legal submissions also made there are no
merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the
claim of the deputationist for a permanent absorption
in the department where he works on deputation is
based upon any statutory rule, regulation or order
having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert
and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The
basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the
person concerned can always and at any time be
repatriated to his parent department to serve in his
substantive position therein at the instance of either of
the departments and there is no vested right in such a
person to continue for long on deputation or get
absorbed in the department to which he had gone on
deputation. The reference to the decision reported in
Rameshwar Prasad v. M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Nirman
Nigam Ltd is inappropriate since the consideration
therein was in the light of the statutory Rules for
absorption and the scope of those Rules. The claim that
he need not be a graduate for absorption and being a
service candidate, on completing service of 10 years he
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 8 of 9
is exempt from the requirement of possessing a degree
needs mention, only to be rejected. The stand of the
respondent Department that the absorption of a
deputationist being one against the direct quota, the
possession of basic educational qualification
prescribed for direct recruitment i.e. a degree is a must
and essential and that there could be no comparison of
the claim of such a person with one to be dealt with on
promotion of a candidate who is already in service in
that Department is well merited and deserves to be
sustained and we see no infirmity whatsoever in the
said claim.”
22. The Tribunal having considered all the aspects of the case
dismissed the Original Application. We find no infirmity in the
impugned order.
23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
24. No costs.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2013
mm
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 9 of 9
Judgment Reserved on August 29, 2013
Judgment Delivered on September 05, 2013
+ W.P.(C) No.936/2005
ANIL KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.G.D.Gupta, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.K.R.Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
UOI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.V.S.R.Krishna, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated December 07, 2004
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original
Application filed by him was dismissed.
2. The claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal was for quashing
the order dated December 18, 2002, as also another order of the same
date December 18, 2002, whereby he has been repatriated to his parent
department i.e. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of
Commerce (Supply Division), New Delhi. His prayer also included that
a declaration be given by the Tribunal that he should be deemed to have
been absorbed in Indian Railways with effect from March 20, 1995 and
necessary orders in this regard be issued by the Indian Railways.
3. Some of the important facts for deciding this petition are that the
petitioner is an officer of Indian Supply Service, having been appointed
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 1 of 9
on March 01, 1975. While he was working as Deputy Director of
Supply he proceeded on deputation to the post of Deputy Controller of
Stores in the Indian Railways in the pre-revised scale of ` 3500-5000.
He joined the Central Organization for Modernization of Workshops
(COFMOW) in the Indian Railways initially for a period of one year on
March 20, 1989.
4. The term of the deputation was extendable upto three years.
Suffice would it be to state that the term of the deputation of the
petitioner was extended from time to time till March 20, 1995.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that on October 09, 1996, 7 officers
of the Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals (DGS&D) were
considered for absorption by the Railway Board which included the
petitioner also. It was decided that he would be absorbed in Indian
Railways against the post vacated by one Mr.N.Shanker. This aspect was
informed by the Indian Railways to his parent office which it appears
had not accepted the proposal of the Indian Railways. The applicant
accordingly filed Original Application No.2658/1997 before the
Tribunal, inter-alia, seeking a direction for issuing formal orders with
regard to his absorption in the Indian Railways Store Service with effect
from March 20, 1995 with all consequential benefits.
6. The said Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal on
September 02, 2002 with direction to the respondents to re-consider the
absorption of the petitioner in Indian Railways by passing a detailed and
speaking order within a period of four months till then status quo as of
date was directed to be maintained.
7. The respondent passed a speaking order dated December 18, 2002
whereby the claim of the petitioner for absorption in Indian Railways
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 2 of 9
was turned down. It is this order which was impugned by the petitioner
before the Tribunal.
8. It was the stand of the respondents before the Tribunal that there
were clear directions of the Department of Personnel & Training against
further extension of deputations of the petitioner. That apart the
Directorate General of Supplies & Disposal was not agreeing to release
any post for the purpose of absorption in the Indian Railways. Therefore,
it was decided to terminate the deputation of the petitioner with
COFMOW and to repatriate him to DGS&D. Further, it was their stand
that the Indian Railways had proposed that the case of the petitioner
could be considered but there was no provision for absorption in the
rules of the Indian Railways in the post which the petitioner was holding
on deputation. The Department of Supply did not agree to the proposal
of the Indian Railways and the suggestion of the Department of Supply
for absorption of the petitioner against any of the cadre post of Indian
Railways Store Service was not found acceptable by the Indian
Railways.
9. The Tribunal after considering the legal position on an issue of
this nature where a deputationist has no right to seek absorption had
dismissed the Original Application.
10. Mr.G.D.Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner would reiterate the stand taken by the petitioner before the
Tribunal. That apart reliance had been placed on Rule 21(9) of the Indian
Railway Store Service Recruitment Rules, 1969, which inter-alia
stipulates that occasionally recruitment from other service in
consultation with the Commission is permissible. Learned senior
counsel has also filed a statement showing, had petitioner been absorbed
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 3 of 9
in Indian Railways he would have got promotion in Indian Railways at
least to the post of Director (Selection Grade) and Deputy Director
General (SAG) much before he got promoted to posts in said grades in
his parent department of DGS&D.
11. It is noted that the petitioner superannuated on May 31, 2012.
12. We may state here that the real issue which falls for our
consideration is whether the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed in the
Indian Railways in the given facts. The facts are not in dispute.
13. It is true that the case of the petitioner was considered by the
Indian Railways against the post vacated by one Mr.N.Shankar.
Mr.N.Shankar had come on deputation to the Indian Railways along with
the post on which he was working in DGS&D. Mr.N.Shankar got
promotion and he was relieved from the Indian Railways in March,
1995. From March, 1995 to September, 1997 the Department of Supply
did not post any person in place of Mr.N.Shankar. Be that as it may, the
Indian Railways did consider the issue of absorption of the petitioner
against the post vacated by Mr.N.Shankar. The same was not accepted
by the Ministry of Commerce under which DGS&D comes. We are
conscious of the fact that six officers from the DGS&D were posted in
Indian Railways and subsequently absorbed. These six officers are those
who have come to Indian Railways along with their post. In so far as the
petitioner is concerned, he came on deputation not with the post and
therefore this was the reason the petitioner could not be absorbed in the
Indian Railways.
14. It is also a fact that no provision exists in the Indian Railways
Store Service Recruitment Rules, 1969, which contemplates absorption
in the post which the petitioner was holding on deputation. This aspect is
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 4 of 9
of relevance when we are deciding the issue in the context of the relief
prayed for by the petitioner. Without there being a provision in the
Recruitment Rules stipulating absorption of a deputationist the petitioner
could not have been absorbed.
15. That apart, a deputationist has no right to seek absorption. In this
regard after referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court the Tribunal
has held as under:
“18. Reference to the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court in the case of RAMESHWAR PRASAD v.
U.P.RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., 1999 (2) SCSLJ 495
would be inappropriate because therein, the Supreme Court
was concerned with the relevant rules of the Nigam but had
still held that there was no permanent right of absorption to
the deputationist. No such rules have been noticed in the
present case and, therefore, the said decision is
distinguishable.
19. The position in law is well settled and we refer with
advantage to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
RATILAL B. SONI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT
AND OTHERS, AIR 1990 SC 1132 wherein the Supreme
Court held that when a person is on deputation, he could be
reverted to his parent cadre at the relevant time. He does not
get any right to be absorbed on deputation post.
20. Same view had been expressed by the Supreme Court in
the case of UNION OF INDIA v. S.N.PANIKAR, (2001) 10
SCC 520 and it was reiterated in the case of MUNI SINGH
AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF BIHAR, (2002) 9 SCC 485.
The Supreme Court reiterated the earlier view that there is
no enforceable right for being permanently absorbed. It was
held:
“1. .......... Having considered the rival
submissions and also the relevant provisions of
the Rules, we do not see any enforceable right
with the petitioners for being permanently
absorbed though we see sufficient force in the
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 5 of 9
contention of Dr. Dhavan that the appropriate
Government would be well advised to consider
the retention of these petitioners permanently in
the Bureau having regard to the case that they
have already rendered services from 1991 till
1999, and that the Rules themselves contemplate
to man the post on transfer. ......”
21. It is true that there has been a correspondence between
the Ministries but no formal order absorbing the applicant
till date has been passed. Merely because one of the Ministry
was willing at one time, does not give an enforceable right to
the applicant till such time a final order is passed.
22. Other wise also, reverting back to the correspondence to
which we have referred to above, it is obvious that it was
only that the name of the applicant was being considered.
No final order has been passed.
23. We know from the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of BACHHITTAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND
ANOTHER, AIR 1963 SC 395 wherein it was held that
before something amounts to an order of the State
Government, two functions are necessary. The Constitution
requires that action must be taken by the authority concerned
and the order should be passed and communicated to the
person who would be affected by that order before the State
and that person can be bound by that order. No order
absorbing the applicant has been passed. Therefore, he
remained as deputationist without having a right to claim
that he must be absorbed.”
16. Further, even the plea of discrimination would not stand in the
facts of this case since the officers who were absorbed had come on
deputation along with the post, which was not the case of the petitioner.
A post in the Indian Railway Store Service is filled in a particular
manner under the Rules. An incumbent can be appointed in terms of the
Rules in the manner contemplated and not otherwise.
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 6 of 9
17. The Court should also be mindful of the fact that the absorption of
the petitioner would also have serious implications in the cadre
management of Indian Railway Store Service as the same would have
had an effect on the service conditions of the serving officers. No relief
could have been granted to the petitioner without the serving employees
being made a party. In fact, the Indian Railways had not accepted the
suggestion of Department of Supply for absorption of the petitioner
against one of the cadre post of the Indian Railway Store Service. Under
the circumstances there was no option for the Indian Railways to
repatriate the petitioner to his parent department.
18. One aspect which also requires our consideration is that whether
the petitioner could have been absorbed against the post left vacant
pursuant to repatriation of one Mr.C.P.Nimje who had not sought his
absorption in the Indian Railways.
19. This Court vide its order dated April 05, 2011 had directed the
respondent to file affidavit in that regard.
20. The affidavit filed by the respondent would reveal that the
absorption of the petitioner in place of Mr.C.P.Nimje was not considered
acceptable on the reason that the question of seeking nomination of
officer in place of Mr.C.P.Nimje should not arise since the transfer of
officers for absorption has to be treated as final. The question of seeking
fresh option did not arise in view of earlier commitment and
understanding between the Ministry of Railways and Ministry of
Commerce & Industry. The petitioner in his rejoinder to the additional
affidavit filed by the respondent does not dispute such a decision except
saying that „the in action of the respondent with respect to the aforesaid
decision in favour of the petitioner qua the officers is malafidely and
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 7 of 9
arbitrary.‟ It is clear that the process of absorption was one time and
with respect to those officers who had come along with their post and
who had opted for absorption. It also transpires that the post which
became vacant on repatriation of Mr.C.P.Nimje was encadred in the
Indian Railway Store Service. Once encadred, the same has to be filled
in terms of Indian Railway Store Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 which
does not contemplate absorption.
21. We note that in Civil Appeal Nos.368-369/2009 Union of India &
Ors. v. S.A.Khalliq Pasha & Anr., decided on January 13, 2009, the
Supreme Court has held as under:-
“Furthermore, in absence of any statutory rules, an
employee does not have any legal right to be absorbed
in the services. It is so held in Kunal Nanda vs. Union
of India and Anr. 2000 (5) SCC 362, in the following
terms:
“On the legal submissions also made there are no
merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the
claim of the deputationist for a permanent absorption
in the department where he works on deputation is
based upon any statutory rule, regulation or order
having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert
and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The
basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the
person concerned can always and at any time be
repatriated to his parent department to serve in his
substantive position therein at the instance of either of
the departments and there is no vested right in such a
person to continue for long on deputation or get
absorbed in the department to which he had gone on
deputation. The reference to the decision reported in
Rameshwar Prasad v. M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Nirman
Nigam Ltd is inappropriate since the consideration
therein was in the light of the statutory Rules for
absorption and the scope of those Rules. The claim that
he need not be a graduate for absorption and being a
service candidate, on completing service of 10 years he
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 8 of 9
is exempt from the requirement of possessing a degree
needs mention, only to be rejected. The stand of the
respondent Department that the absorption of a
deputationist being one against the direct quota, the
possession of basic educational qualification
prescribed for direct recruitment i.e. a degree is a must
and essential and that there could be no comparison of
the claim of such a person with one to be dealt with on
promotion of a candidate who is already in service in
that Department is well merited and deserves to be
sustained and we see no infirmity whatsoever in the
said claim.”
22. The Tribunal having considered all the aspects of the case
dismissed the Original Application. We find no infirmity in the
impugned order.
23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
24. No costs.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2013
mm
W.P.(C) No.936/2005 Page 9 of 9