DR. MEGEHNDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 5.12.2016 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant Dr. Megehndra Sharma against the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal and also the order issued by the respondent dated 13.7.2016, repatriating the appellant to his parent department with the further prayer that the respondents be directed to allow him on the post of Project Officer in Science and Technology Department as per the terms of the original appointment.

(2.) Contention of learned counsel for the appellant Shri Ashwini Jaiman is that appellant was initially appointed as Teacher Gr.III on 29.11.1999. The State Government has established a department known as Department of Science and Technology. The Government has by amendment notification dated 4.1993 promulgated Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service of Project Directors, Project Officers and Research Officers in the Department of Science and Technology Amendment Rules, 1993 (for short-the Rules of 1993) by amending the Rules of 1986 thereof. The respondent-department invited application from eligible persons for appointment on the aforementioned post on deputation. Petitioner applied for the same and was selected in view of his qualifications on the post of Research Officer at State Remote Sensing Application Centre, Jodhpur vide appointment order dated 8.6.2011 initially under Rule 14 on adhoc basis for one year or till the regularly selected candidates are available, whichever is earlier. Petitioner joined his duties as Research Officer on 8.6.2011. He was placed in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100, grade pay of Rs.5400. His deputation was extended for one year vide order dated 15.5.2013. He continued to work in that post till 2015 as the respondents opted to allow him to continue to work on that post due to non-availability of eligible candidates. It was thereafter that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 10.6.2015 whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment on deputation on the post of Project Director, Research Officer and Project Officer. Petitioner also applied for the post of Research Officer as well as Project Officer on deputation. However, he was selected for appointment on the post of Project Officer vide order dated 28.7.2015. Upon being selected and appointed, petitioner joined his duties as Project Officer in the running pay band of Rs.15600-39100 of grade pay Rs.6000 on 29.7.2015. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in counting the initial period of appointment of the petitioner on adhoc temporary basis on the post of Research Officer from 8.6.2011 till his fresh appointment by way of selection on recommendation of selection Committee by order dated 28.7.2015 to hold that petitioner has completed more than six years.

(3.) Shri Ashwini Jaiman Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to condition no.3 of the advertisement dated 10.6.2015, according to which the term of the appointment would only be three years though initially the appointment shall be for a period of one year but in the discretion of the Government, the appointment could be terminated at any time. The understanding was that the petitioner would be allowed to continue for the full duration of the appointment on deputation for a period of three years. The Director, Information and Technology, Department however, illegally by order dated 17.2016 relieved the petitioner for joining his parent department. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge have taken a wrong interpretation of Rule 7(i) of the Rules of 1993 by holding that the post of Project Officer shall be held by an officer for a tenure not exceeding three years, which may be extended by appointing authority for further term not exceeding three years at a time. The learned Single Judge has seriously erred in holding that maximum period of deputation, therefore, could be six years; initial period being three years and therefore the limit of period of extension being three more years. Language of Rule 7(i) is quite clear that the deputation may be extended by the appointing authority for further term not exceeding three years at a time. This according to learned counsel means that the order of extension at a time can be for a maximum period of three years, although, it could be for lesser period also may be for one or two years. However, this rule cannot be interpreted to mean that once the period of three years expires, further order of extension cannot be issued. In other words, what the learned counsel wants to convey is that even when the deputationist has completed six years, further extension can still be granted to him any number of times, subject to condition that at a time, such extension shall not exceed three years.