UNION OF INDIA Vs. S N PANIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India is the appellant against the order of the Central Administrative tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') , dated 24th April, 1992. passed in O. A. No. 1001/91. By the impugned order, the tribunal directs the Union Government to absorb the respondent in the post of deputy Director (Development) w. e. f. the date when the last period of his deputation formally ended, i. e. , w. e. f. 1.1. 1990.

(2.) The post of Deputy Director (Development) could be filled up only by direct recruitment under the relevant recruitment rules framed under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said recruitment rules, inter alia, rule 6 confers powers of relaxation with the Central Government and such relaxation has to be given for the reasons recorded in writing and in consultation with the Union Public Service commission (for short 'the UPSC'). Consultation with the UPSC is necessary, obviously because the direct recruitment has to be made after selecting the candidate through the UPSC. The respondent, who was serving in the department, was sent on deputation after due consultation with the UPSC in exercise of power of relaxation under rule 6 of the recruitment rules. But, after the period of deputation was over, when the Department requested the upsc for further continuance of the respondent on deputation, the UPSC refused the request of the Union Government and informed the Union Government that the UPSC has not agreed to the extension of the period of deputation of Shri S. N. Panikar (the respondent herein) in the post of Deputy Director (Development) by its letter dated 23rd april, 1990. The respondent thereafter approached the Tribunal which came to the conclusion that the deputation itself, having been made by the Union Government in consultation with the UPSC in relaxation of the provisions of the recruitment rules providing for direct recruitment, the applicant must be held to have a right to hold the post according to the terms and conditions of appointment and he was not an ad hoc appointee and the respondents were not right in terming his appointment as ad hoc. This conclusion of the Tribunal is contrary to the service jurisprudence and to the relevant rules under which the respondent was sent on deputation to the post of Deputy director (Development). The further conclusion of the Tribunal, that regardless of whether the formal order states it or not the decision to fill up the post by transfer on deputation should be deemed to be a decision taken in relaxation of the recruitment rules as provided in Rule 6, is also erroneous. The power of relaxation was exercised by the union Government in consultation with the UPSC for a limited purpose, namely, to fill up the post by taking somebody on deputation which otherwise required to be filled up only by direct recruitment. In that view of the matter, a deputationist cannot claim either a right to the post in question nor can he claim an absorption on permanent basis to the post in question. In fact, the respondent himself has written to the Ministry of Agriculture, union of India, requesting therein that he should be appointed on regular basis and appropriate order of the Government should be issued in that respect, and in case there is any delay, then the ad hoc appointment of his should be continued. The Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, having been specifically indicated that the post of Deputy Director could be filled up only by way of direct recruitment and the relaxation obtained in the case in hand being only for the purpose of filling up the post by way of deputation for a limited period, no right can be claimed by the deputationist to the said post and in this view of the matter, the impugned direction of the Tribunal directing the Union Government to absorb the respondent with effect from a particular date in the post of Deputy director on regular basis is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the statutory recruitment Rules. It transpires that while this matter is pending in this Court, the respondent was reverted by an order of the competent authority on 17.10. 1994 and he has, in the meantime, superannuated from service on 31st of May, 1995.

(3.) In the aforesaid premises, it would be difficult for us to accept the alternative submission of Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, to direct the authorities to consider the grant of postretiral benefits, treating him to be a deputy Director (Development). In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and this appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.