G K PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of matters raises common points and have been argued together. The question involved is whether the appellants and the petitioners who were originally recruited as Constables in various branches of the police Force and were transferred to the Intelligence Bureau of the Police Force on various dates, acquired a right to continue in the Intelligence Bureau and, therefore, could not be reverted to their original posts in various branches of the Police Force where they were initially recruited.

(2.) The appellants of the group of the Letters Patent Appeals had filed petitions challenging the orders of their repatriation from the Intelligence Bureau. That group of petitions came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge (Honourable Miss Justice R.M. Doshit) and by order dated 18th march, 1999 which has been challenged in this Application, the Learned Single Judge rejected the petitions by holding that in view of the clear stipulations made in the orders by which they were transferred to the Intelligence Bureau, all these employees were working in the Intelligence Bureau on deputation and had no right to challenge their repatriation to the parent cadres in their respective districts and units. In the other petitions which were filed by similar employees, the matters were referred to the Division Bench in view of the Appeals preferred against the said decision dated 18th March, 1999 and were ordered to be heard with the Letters Patent Appeals. That is how all the matters were clubbed together for a common hearing.

(3.) In all the matters, the employees have challenged their repatriation on the ground that they were entitled to continue in the Intelligence Bureau and should be treated as if they are absorbed therein. 3.1 The claim of these employees was that they were appointed in the Intelligence Bureau after being selected at written and oral tests. Upon their appointment in the Intelligence Bureau, they were posted on the post equivalent to the post which was next higher to the one held by them in the parent branch. According to these employees, their promotion and transfer to the Intelligence Bureau was as per the relevant Recruitment Rules and should be treated as a permanent appointment. 3.2 The case of the respondent authorities was that having regard to the setup of the Intelligence Bureau, these were only temporary transfers for a period of three years which was mentioned in the orders, as per the policy laid down in the Government Resolution dated 3rd November, 1990. The one step higher post was given only with a view to provide incentive to those who were serving in the Police Force for joining the Intelligence Bureau and it was made clear at the time of their transfer that they did not thereby acquire any right in the Intelligence Bureau and that such promotion which was given by way of incentive was to be treated only as a fortuitous one. 3.3 The Learned Single Judge while holding that the Recruitment Rules which were subsequently framed after the Resolution dated 3rd November, 1990 did not contemplate appointment in the Intelligence Bureau by deputation though they provided for transfer of police personnel from other branches of the State Police Service namely, Armed Branch, Unarmed Branch or Wireless Branch by internal promotion and by direct selection, found that it was necessary to examine the nature of their appointments in order to ascertain whether they were transferred on permanent basis, as envisaged in the Recruitment Rules or whether they were transferred on deputation basis in light of the Resolution dated 3rd November, 1990. The Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the transfers of these persons to the Intelligence Bureau were of a temporary nature, being for a period of three years, and that, one step promotion offered to them was also limited to the period for which they served in the Intelligence Bureau. It was held that these employees were bound by the terms and conditions of their appointment and their repatriation to their parent post whether on the ground of unsuitability or for retirement or on completion of the initial period was in consonance with the terms of their appointment and that they had no right to continue in the Intelligence Bureau on permanent basis. The Learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Inder Singh & Ors., reported in 1997 (8) SCC 372 in which it was held that after the expiry of the period of deputation, the employee has to come back to his parent Department and occupy the same position unless, in the mean while, he has earned promotion in the parent Department as per the Recruitment Rules. It was held by the learned Single Judge that even if no undertaking was given by some of the employees, the stipulations contained in their orders of transfer to the Intelligence Bureau showed that they were to be on deputation to the Intelligence Bureau and therefore they could not challenge their repatriation.