Neeraj Kumar Pandey vs High Court of Judicature At Allahabad and others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—The question for consideration being the same, both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sthalekar appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner, an employee of Mathura judgship, has prayed for quashing of order dated 1.4.2009 appended as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, by which District Judge, Mathura, on the basis of letter of High Court dated 12.11.2008 has refused to relieve him for the purpose of joining on deputation in Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.

The Administrative Committee of the High Court vide its resolution dated 17.10.2008, has taken a policy decision not to send any non-gazetted employee on deputation. This resolution has been appended as Annexure No. C.A.-5 to the counter affidavit. It is on the basis of this policy decision taken by the High Court that impugned order refusing to relieve the petitioner has been passed by the District Judge, Mathura.

Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that Administrative Committee of the High Court in its resolution dated 17.10.2008, has not considered letters dated 2.8.2007 and 4.7.2008 written by the District Judge, Mathura concerning petitioner''s present selection on deputation, copies of which have been appended as Annexure Nos. 4 & 5 to the writ petition. According to him, the letters considered by the Administrative Committee in its resolution dated 17.10.2008 pertain to petitioner''s earlier selection & deputation in Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. It is also contended that policy decision has been taken by the Administrative Committee of the High Court and not by the Full Court.

Once a policy decision has been taken and communicated to all concerned for its implementation, it has to be necessarily adhered to so long it is not withdrawn, modified or substituted. Therefore, policy decision having been taken in regard to a particular subject, it is not necessary for the Administrative Committee to consider each & every letter on that subject and the submission made by the Counsel for petitioner in this regard has no substance.

In Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar and another 1994 (4) SCC 659, while considering the question of deputation of an employee of one department to another, the Apex Court in paragraph No. 8 of the aforesaid decision held as under:

Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such service by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation.

A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Accounts Association Through General Secretary and others v. Union of India and others 2004 (3) ESC (All.) 1404, in paragraphs 23 & 24 of the judgment, has also reiterated the same view as in Umapati Choudhary''s case (supra).

Thus, it is apparent that for the purposes of deputation, consent of the employer, borrowing employer and employee concerned is necessary. In the absence of consent of any of the aforesaid three persons, there cannot be any deputation.

In the present case, the petitioner''s employer i.e. District Judge, Mathura has refused to accord consent on the basis of policy decision taken by the High Court, and hence in the absence of the consent of his employer, the petitioner cannot claim as of right much less a fundamental right for appointment to a post under Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh on deputation. The petitioner being an employee of district judgeship subordinate to and under control of the High Court, is bound by the policy decision taken by the High Court in its Administrative Committee meeting as stated above.

So far as the submission that aforesaid policy decision has been taken by the Administrative Committee and not by the Full Court, is concerned, the same has also no force in view of the observations of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and Another, in paragraph No. 17, which are as under:

17............The Administrative Judge or the Administrative Committee is a mere instrumentality through which the entire Court acts for the more, convenient transaction in its business, the assumed basis of the arrangement being that such instrumentalities will only act in furtherance of the broad policies evolved from time to time by the High Court as a whole. Each Judge of the High Court is an integral limb of the Court. He is its alterego. It is therefore inappropriate to say that a Judge or a Committee of Judges of the High Court authorised by the Court to act on its behalf is a delegate of the Court.

For the reasons stated above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned dated 1.4.2009 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

Consequently, both the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.