TALVIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner while working as Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) was sent on deputation to Central Bureau of Investigation (in short "CBI") Jammu, pursuant to CBI Headquarter letter dtd. 1/3/2013. The deputation of the petitioner was initially for a period of three years but the same was extended for further period of two years.

(2.) The petitioner, subsequently, appeared in the Personal Assessment Test on 9/9/2017 for his absorption in the CBI, and was successful in the screening test and, accordingly, shortlisted for the same. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for extension of his deputation period vide representation dtd. 8/12/2017 and respondent No. 4 informed the CBI Headquarter that the petitioner"s case is under consideration for absorption and NOC has been sought from parent department. The case of the petitioner alongwith some other persons was recommended by the B.S.F on 18/1/2019 to respondent No. 1 for grant of permanent absorption in CBI w.e.f 18/10/2017, subject to relaxation. The respondent No. 4, however, on 13/7/2021 issued order for repatriation of 69 Constables of CAPF including petitioner as the MHA had conveyed refusal of NOCs.

(3.) The petitioner has assailed the order of his repatriation to his parent department dtd. 13/7/2021 and also the order No. 254/2021 dtd. 14/7/2021 directing him to report for further duties to Director General, BSF, New Delhi. He is aggrieved of these orders on the ground that the same are in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also submits that he has rendered outstanding service for more than 08 years with the respondent-CBI and has also cleared the Personal Assessment Test for his permanent absorption. He, accordingly, applied for extension of his deputation to the concerned authorities for which NOC was given by the parent department and a recommendation was also made in his favour. According to him, the respondent-CBI have not adopted a uniform criteria for absorption of all the eligible persons in their organization. They have been absorbing similarly situated persons but have denied the same benefit to the petitioner. The respondents all along have been regularizing the overstay of the similarly situated persons by granting post facto NOC also in their favour for permanent absorption but have arbitrarily refused the same to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner continued working with the CBI even after the expiry of his tenure on 24/8/2018, therefore, had a legitimate expectation of his absorption in CBI.