AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
The applicant is aggrieved of the order dated 04.03.2025 of the authority working under Respondent No. 2 vide which the applicant’s request for ‘No Objection Certificate’ for Central Staffing Scheme has been rejected and the applicant has been advised to apply under Central Staffing Scheme 2026.
Vide paras 8 and 9 of the OA, the applicant seeks the following relief and interim relief:
Relief sought:
i. To quash the order 04.03.2025 passed by the respondent No.1-Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, solely based on the recommendations of the respondent No.2-Engineer-in-Chief, directing the applicant to apply under Central Staffing Scheme-2026 thereby rejecting the application of the applicant for issuance of No Objection Certificate/Cadre Clearance for Central Staffing Scheme-2025;
ii. to issue directions to the respondents, in particular the respondent No.1, for issuing Cadre Clearance/No Objection Certificate to the applicant enabling him to be considered for deputation under Central Staffing Scheme-2025 well before the extended date, viz. 30.04.2025;
iii. to issue any further direction or order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to deliver justice to the applicant;
iv. Post of this O.A. be also awarded.
Interim order, if any prayed for pending final decision on the application, the applicant seek the following relief:
It is further prayed that, as an interim measure/relief, the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to forward the application of the applicant for CSS-2025 complete in all respect to the DoP&T immediately forthwith so that his application be considered by th DoP&T for deputation under CSS-2025, in the interest of justice.
Further, as an interim relief, it is further prayed that the respondent No.2-Engineer-in-Chief may kindly be directed to submit the entire records of the applications, either recommending for, or extending the period of, deputation after recommending for, or extending the period of, deputation after January 2023 so as to extract grains from the chaff, which information would itself be sufficient for highlighting the discrimination being meted out to the applicant, in the interest of justice.
Still further, as an interim relief, no application/ relieving/extension for deputation and/or long/study leave of any officer in the Grade of Superintending Engineer, or the organized Group A Services of the Military Engineering Services, be forwarded to the DoP&T during the pendency of this application”
Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Gurinderbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Others in W.P.(C) No. 4113/2022 decided on March 10, 2022 wherein it has been laid down as under:
“3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying as follows:
"i. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/order/direction to the Respondent Nos. 2-4 to forward the application of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager (Legal) on deputation basis in Respondent No. 5 - NHAI, as prescribed in the Notification issued by Respondent No. 5 (AnnexureP -2),
ii. Direct Respondent No. 5 to consider and process the application of the Petitioner, along with supporting documents, in terms of the Notification issued by Respondent No. 5 (Annexure P-2), even if it receives the forwarded Application of the Petitioner from Respondent Nos. 2-4 after 11.03.2022,
iii. Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit"
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Manager (Legal) on deputation basis in respondent" No. 5/National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) through his parent department i.e., the Border Security Force (BSF)/respondent Nos. 2 to 4. However, the said application of the petitioner, which was forwarded to the BSF on 21.02.2022, has till date not been forwarded by the BSF to NHAI as required by applicable rules.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that there is no absolute obligation upon the said respondents to forward an application in every case; and in any case, when they receive an application from an individual, the same has to be forwarded to the concerned department for approval before forwarding it to the organisation to which the applicant is seeking deputation.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 6 of Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) Guidelines dated 23.12.2013 which states the circumstances in which an application should not be forwarded by the parent department. Para 6 of the said guidelines reads as under:
“6. CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE FORWARDED
Application of a Government servant for appointment, whether by direct recruitment, transfer on deputation or transfer, to any other post should not be considered/forwarded, if-
(a)(i) he is under suspension; or
(ii) discplinary proceredings are pending against him and a charge sheet has been issued; or
(iii) sanction for prosecution, where necessary has been accorded by the competent authority; or
(iv) where a prosecution sanction is not necessary, a charge-sheet has been filed in a Court of law against him for criminal prosecution.
(v) where he is undergoing a penalty-no application should be forwarded during 'the currency of such penalty.
(b) When the conduct of a Government servant is under investigation (by the CBI or by the Controlling Department) but the investigation has not reached the stage of issue of charge-sheet or prosecution sanction or filing of charge-sheet for criminal prosecution in a court, the application of such a Government servant may be forwarded together with brief comments on the nature of allegations and it should also be made clear that in the event of actual selection of the Government servant, he would not be released for taking up the appointment, if by that time any of the situations in (a) above arises."
Admittedly, the case of the petitioner does not fall under para 6 of DoPT Guidelines dated 23.12.2013.
In view of the above, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to forward the application of the petitioner after verification of certificates of the petitioner preferably by tomorrow le. 11.03.2022 by 06.00 p.m.; and in the event of any unavoidable procedural difficulty, then in any case within 03 working days from today.
We further direct NHAI/respondent No. 5 to accept the petitioner's application even if the BSF fails to forward the application to them within time; and to give a grace period of upto 7 (seven) days for receiving such application,
The writ petition disposed-of with the above directions.
Pending application, being C.M. No. 1253/2022, also stands disposed of.
It is however made clear that the present order has been passed in the specific facts of this case.
A copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.”
Shri R K Sharma, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents and confirms of having received a copy of the OA. He vehemently opposes the present OA on the pretext that no cause of action has arisen and the employer Department has right and prerogative to consider and forward the application(s) of employees in their jurisdiction on Central Deputation under Central Staffing Scheme. He further invites attention to Office Memorandum dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure A-2) and relies upon para 7 of the OM which deals with the forwarding of applications for posts advertised by Central/Public Sector Undertakings/ Autonomous Bodies.
The applicant belongs to Indian Defence Service of Engineers which is one of the participating services under the Central Staffing Scheme. Respondent No.2 has issued impugned order dated 04.03.2025, wherein, no reason has been cited as to why the applicant’s application for Central Staffing Scheme-2025 is not being considered prior to the year 2026. It is merely a four line non-speaking order advising the applicant to apply under Central Staffing Scheme-2026 without giving any reason(s) for such a decision.
In view of the above, the OA is disposed of at admission stage itself with the following directions:
i. Impugned order dated 04.03.2025 is quashed and set aside.
ii. The respondents are directed to consider the request of the applicant and forward his application for consideration under Central Staffing Scheme-2025 to the competent authority amongst the respondents without delay. The last date for forwarding the application under Central Staffing Scheme-2025 is reported to be 31.04.2025 which was earlier extended from 31.01.2025.
iii. If the applicant is still aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, he may initiate a fresh cause of action as per law.
Order dasti