ANJALI MAJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the matter of one Anjali Majee in a petition registered as O.A. No.278 of 1999. The order of the Tribunal is dated 18.5.1999. The order of the Tribunal is, to the effect, that regard being had to the circumstances that Mrs. Anjali Majee was only on deputation, the fact that the period of deputation has come to close, she must be repatriated to her parent department and, in the cicumstances, there has been no injustice in the action of the management of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti in sending her back at the close of her period of deputation and the aspect of her right to be permanently absorbed in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on the post of Principal is misconceived.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. Anjali Majee, it has been submitted that if it were a simple case of deputation of the petitioner to Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, then there is no issue in her returning to her parent department. It is contended that this is not the aspect in totality in so far as her case is concerned.

(3.) THEN , it has been contended that as a person on deputation she was entitled to be considered for absorption as the rule gives her this opportunity. It is, thus, she contends her entire record had not been taken into account. To substantiate this contention the Court 's attention was drawn to the record that in the counter affidavit the respondents admitted that the records for the year 1995 -1996 1996 -97 and at best for the year 1997 had been seen. In this context it is contended that the respondents themselves were seeking enquiries on the reports about the performance of the petitioner and that this enquiry was not without cause. The purpose of the enquiry was to have an evaluation for considering the candidates who may be entitled to absorption. On this reference has been made to the Circular of 14.2.1997 from the Deputy Director (Personal) to the Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, All Regions for the purpose of showing to the Court that it was a policy of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti that regard being had to persons on deputation their permanent absorption, upon suitability, was one of the policies. The contention is that this is not a simple matter of deputation coming to an end and the incumbent reverting to the parent department. Consequently, it is contended that enquiries were made by the Deputy Commissioner in the communication addressed to the Director, SE.PRA. EVAM VAYASK SHIK -SHA VIBHAG, Bihar, Patna seeking information about the petitioner 's performance. Then there is a communication from the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to the Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, New Delhi. This is dated 1.5.1999 about the performance of the petitioner. On this basis it is contended that this was a record beyond the year 1995 -96, 1996 -97 and the year 1997. The contention is that the record beyond the year 1997 had not been taken into account.