Kamal Kumar and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Madan B. Lokur, J.—The Petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 17th September, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 2156/1993.

The only issue urged before us by learned Counsel for the Petitioners is with regard to the appointment of the Petitioners to the post of Technical Assistants in the Staff Inspection Unit of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) of the Government of India. The controversy is with regard to the date of regular appointment.

According to learned Counsel, the Petitioners should have been shown as regular appointees with effect from 5th October, 1987 and 9th October, 1987 instead of 7th January, 1992. The basis of learned Counsel�s argument is that the Petitioners were appointed on the dates in October,1987 on deputation to the Staff Inspection Unit, Ministry of Finance and they met the eligibility criteria for the post of Technical Assistant as per the Recruitment Rules.

By an Office Memorandum dated 1st October, 1986 applications were invited for filling up the post of Technical Assistants in the Staff Inspection Unit of the Ministry of Finance. The posts were to be filled up on deputation or transfer basis.

In paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum it was clearly mentioned that applications should be sent of only those eligible candidates who could be spared in the event of their selection. Clearly, the appointment was only intended to be on deputation or transfer basis but the candidates to be sent by the parent department were to be those who could be spared in the event of their selection.

Under these circumstances the names of the Petitioners were sent for appointment on deputation with an eye on the future. We have seen the letter dated 19th October, 1987 by which the Petitioners were originally appointed as Technical Assistants and we find that the letter clearly mentions they have been appointed on deputation basis for a period of one year from the date shown against their names. There is no dispute that the Petitioners fulfilled the requirements of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, (Staff Inspection Unit, Senior Analyst, Junior Analyst and Technical Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 1985 framed on 20th November, 1985.

Much later, pursuant to the Memorandum dated 1st October, 1986 the Petitioners were absorbed by the Ministry of Finance in the post of Technical Assistants and an Office Order to this effect was passed on 4th January, 1993 and they were absorbed with effect from 7th January, 1992.

It is the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioners that since the Petitioners fulfilled all the requisite qualifications, their absorption should be with effect from the date they were sent on deputation, that is, sometime in October, 1987.

In our opinion, the Petitioners were only deputationists and even though they fulfilled the requisite qualifications under the Recruitment

Rules, the fact is that they were sent on a deputation basis. The Office Memorandum dated 1st October, 1986 also makes it clear that the appointments would be made on a deputation basis. Consequently, the Petitioners cannot claim any right to have their appointment regularized from the date on which they were sent on deputation.

It is true that the Petitioners may have fulfilled all the requisite qualifications in terms of the Recruitment Rules but that was obviously one of the conditions for being sent on deputation. It is clear from the language used in the Office Memorandum dated 1st October, 1986 that the purpose of taking persons on deputation to the post of Technical Assistants was with a long term intention of absorbing them subsequently, if selected, in that post. In so far as the Petitioners were concerned they were eventually selected and were absorbed and regularized in the post of Technical Assistants but that was only with effect from 7th January, 1992.

The period that the Petitioners have been on deputation cannot be counted for the purposes of regularization since it is well settled that a deputationist has no right to a post. The right only arises in case a deputationist is absorbed and in the case of the Petitioners, the absorption is only with effect from 7th January, 1992.

Under these circumstances, we do not find any error having been committed by the Respondents in treating the Petitioners as regular appointees to the post of Technical Assistants with effect from 7th January, 1992 and not from October, 1987 when they initially came on deputation.

There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.