http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: KUNAL NANDA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/04/2000

BENCH: S.S.Ahamad, Doraiswami Raju

JUDGMENT:

     Raju, J.

     Special leave granted.

     The appellant, who lost before the Tribunal as well as the  High  Court, has come up before this Court  challenging the  judgment of the High Court declining to interfere  with the  order  dated  16.4.99  of  the  Central  Administrative Tribunal,  Principal  Bench, New Delhi, in O.A.   No.241  of 1999   which,  in  turn,  repelled   a  challenge   to   the repatriation of the appellant to his parent department.  The appellant,  a  member  of CRPF and serving as  an  Assistant Sub-Inspector  in the said parent department w.e.f.  1.1.87, joined the service of CBI on deputation in the same capacity as  ASI  on  1.8.91.   He continued to work as  ASI  on  the deputation  terms  for the initial period, which came to  be extended  from  time to time with the mutual consent of  the lending  and  borrowing  department.  In the year  1994,  no doubt, the borrowing department expressed an inclination for permanent  absorption  in  the  CBI   and  sought  for   the concurrence  of  the CRPF to which, it appears, the  lending department also conveyed its clearance.

     It  may  be noticed at this stage that while  on  such deputation  in the CBI, the appellant was also appointed  as Sub-Inspector on 1.6.95 and in his parent department also he was promoted as such.  There are no specific statutory rules as   such  governing  the  question   of  absorption  of   a deputationist.   On  the  other hand, the  said  subject  is governed by departmental instructions and circular orders as per  which the qualification and experience of the  Officers to  be selected should be comparable to those prescribed for direct  recruits to such posts where direct recruitment  has also   been  prescribed  as  one  of  the  methods  of   the appointment  in  the Recruitment Rules.  In consonance  with such  procedure,  the  appellant was asked  to  undertake  a written  test.  He made a formal application disclosing  his credentials  and  on  the basis of his  performance  in  the written  test,  the  record  relating to  last  five  years A.C.Rs.   (Part-I - Personal Data) for the period 1993-94 to 1997/98  in  which the appellant mentioned about  his  basic educational  qualification  as B.A.  and his performance  in the  interview, the Screening Committee constituted for  the purpose  recommended the absorption of the appellant in  the CBI  as Sub-Inspector.  But when the appellant was asked  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

produce  the  documents  in  original   in  support  of  his educational  qualifications  etc.,   the  appellant  started explaining  that for a person of his standing in service the basic  educational qualification of passing Senior Secondary Examination is enough and passing of degree examination, may not  be  insisted upon.  This was not only contrary  to  his earlier  representation  that  he  was a  graduate  but  the Screening  Committees recommendation for absorption in  CBI was  also on the basis that the appellant was a graduate, as disclosed  by  him.  This seems to have been taken  also  as proof   of  his  doubtful   integrity  in  furnishing  wrong information  about  his  educational   qualification  to  be graduation  to some how gain absorption.  Since, in terms of the  relevant  rules the total period of deputation  in  the rank  of  ASI/SI including that of deputation in  any  other cadre/cadre  post  cannot be for more than five  years,  the appellant  was repatriated to his parent department and also relieved  with effect from 31.1.99.  (A.N.) with a direction to  report for duty to the parent department.   Apprehending the  same,  the appellant moved the  Central  Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A.  No.241 of 99.

     The  Tribunal by its order dated 16.4.99, rejected the claim  of the appellant holding that he had no vested  right to  absorption,  that  he was not totally  an  indispensable person  in  CBI and that he being not a graduate  cannot  be absorbed,  under  the  relevant  rules.   The  grievance  of alleged differential treatment has also been found to be not substantiated  - in that the absorption erroneously made  of N.N.   Mishra  (a  mistaken reference to  N.P.   Mishra)  is sought  to  be undone by already initiating action  in  that direction  and that the case of N.P.Pandey - a  departmental officer has to be treated as regular promotion and not to be treated  as  a  deputationist.  It was ultimately  held  for those reasons that the CBI cannot be compelled to absorb the appellant,  and consequently the order of repatriation dated 29.1.99  did  not call for any interference.  Not  satisfied the  appellant  moved the Delhi High Court by means of  Writ Petition (Civil) No.2533 of 1999 and a Division Bench of the High  Court,  by  an order dated 26.7.99 rejected  the  same observing  that there are no merits in the petition and find no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal under challenge.   Relentless,  the appellant has approached  this court.

     Heard  the learned counsel for the appellant and  Shri R.N.   Trivedi,  learned Additional Solicitor General.   The least  said about the conduct of the appellant is better for him.   The appellant, indisputably, is only a  deputationist so far as CBI is concerned and his parent department is only CRPF and his substantive position and appointment is only in that   department  and  ordinarily  a  deputation,  as   per governing  rules,  cannot last for a period more  than  five years.   The frivolous claim that a person like him need not be  a graduate for absorption and appointment in CBI, apart, the appellant appears to have rendered himself unreliable by making,  to  put  it  in   most  mild  terms,  an  incorrect representation  of his basic educational qualification to be a  graduate  while  factually  it is not so,  and  this  one ground,  strongly  urged  is enough to non-suit  him.   This itself  will  be  sufficient  to  dis-entitle  him  to  even continue  in  the CBI any longer.  The  Screening  Committee which  appears to have initially recommended for  absorption also  seem  to have proceeded on the basis of the  erroneous representation  of  the appellant of his  basic  educational

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

qualification and the copy of the proceedings made available disclose  this  serious lapse and consequently no  advantage can be claimed on the basis of the recommendation, made on a mistaken  view  of the facts more so, when such mistake  was the  making of the appellant himself.  This assertion of the respondent-  CBI  Department was specific and reiterated  in unmistakable  terms  from the beginning before the  Tribunal (vide  para 4 (h) and 5 of the reply) and thereafter  before the  High  Court in the counter filed (vide para 3  (e)  and finally  before  this  Court also (vide para 5  (c)  of  the counter filed on behalf of the respondent).  Throughout, the response  of  the appellant to those assertions  at  various stages  was  evasive  and nebulous and  neither  direct  nor specific  in  refutation of facts in particular.   Being  an appeal  under  Act  136 of the Constitution of  India,  this Court  will  be justified in even rejecting this appeal,  on this ground alone.

     On the legal submissions made also there are no merits whatsoever.  It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist  for  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  vs M.D.,  U.P.  Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.  and Others [1999 (8) SCC  381] is inappropriate since, the consideration  therein was  in the light of 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  is  exempt  from  the requirement  of possessing a degree need 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 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.

     For  all the reasons stated above, we see no merit  in this appeal which shall stand dismissed.  No costs.