MOHITE GAJANAN MADHAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent authorities whereby his candidature for absorption on the post of Head Constable (Nursing Assistant) has not even been considered despite his giving willingness and irrevocable option for his absorption and is also challenging the order dtd. 30/1/2015 (Annexure P/5) repatriating the petitioner to his parent department.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Border Security Force (BSF) and vide order dtd. 11/10/2011 (Annexure P/1) he was appointed on deputation by respondent No.3 on the post of Head Constable (Nursing Assistant) {in short "HC (NA)"} at the hospital of 45 Battalion, BSF, Mulla Camp, Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker. For filling up the post of HC (NA) from amongst the HC/Constables by deputation/absorption in light of Standard Operating Procedure dtd. 15/9/2010 (Annexure P/3), respondent No.3 issued an order on 9/9/2014 (Annexure P/2) and sought willingness and irrevocable option from the HC (NA) who are working on deputation and willing to be permanently absorbed on the post of HC (NA).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has given his willingness and irrevocable option as per requirement of the respondents for permanent absorption on the post of HC (NA), but his candidature was not considered which appears from the list Appendix A attached to the absorption order dtd. 30/1/2015, which is a list of candidates who gave their willingness and irrevocable option for permanent absorption whereas the other candidates were absorbed on the said post. The petitioner has a good experience over the post of HC (NA) which was served by him on deputation and has a good performance without any adverse remark, even then he was not absorbed on the said post which is per se illegal and arbitrary. The committee did not even consider the case of the petitioner for the reason best known to it, for his absorption on the post of HC (NA) and the impugned order dtd. 30/1/2015 was passed repatriating him to his parent department, which is wholly illegal. The petitioner has made a representation against the same on 3/2/2015 (Annexure P/6) to respondent No.2 which is still pending. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondent No.2 be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and absorb him on the post of HC (NA).