VIJAY SINGH Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complains of his alleged wrongful denial of permanent secondment in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance ("DGQA"). He contends that he fulfilled all prescribed conditions of criteria, and questions the decision of the Quality Assurance Selection Board ("QASB"), which held a meeting on 11.08.2011. He seeks a consequential direction to the respondents that he should be permanently seconded to DGQA (with all consequential benefits of seniority and continuity in service) on the basis of the criteria prescribed by holding a fresh Board.

(2.) The Director General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) is an inter -services organization, comprising of personnel from all the armed forces, i.e. the Army, and Indian Navy. Besides, it has its own civilian cadre of employees. The DGQA is under the control of the Department of Defence Production. Apparently, there existed a combined cadre of service officers of the research and development wings of various inspection organizations. These were bifurcated with effect from 01.08.1977. After bifurcation, the revision of the qualifications, requirement for tenure and permanent intake of service officers in the DGQA were comprised in an OM governing the issue on 28.10.1978. Subsequently, these were refined, in a letter of the Department of Defence Production, dated 09.01.1980. The guidelines for induction and permanent secondment of service officers in the Indian Army of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the DGQA were amended on 16.11.2007. The upper age of permanent secondment was prescribed to be 44 years as on 1st April of the year of permanent secondment.

(3.) The petitioner had, in the meanwhile, on 14.12.1991, joined the Indian Army and was commissioned as a member of the EME Corps. He joined the Controllerate of Quality Assurance at Jabalpur as Deputy Controller of Quality Assurance on 21.12.2008. Subsequently, in March 2011, his spouse was detected with recurrent cancer. By the time he had completed his first tenure on 26.05.2011, the petitioner reported to the Headquarters of the DGQA, New Delhi for a second tenure. His spouse died on 08.02.2013. The petitioner sought for permanent secondment, that is akin to absorption, within the DGQA, by representation, dated 23.08.2013. This request was turned down or rather rejected on 14.10.2013. The respondents contended that the prevailing guidelines contained in the OM dated 23.04.2010 rendered him, i.e. the petitioner ineligible for consideration. The petitioner is consequently before this Court.