- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kunal Nanda v. Union Of India And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, originally an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) since 1-1-1987, was deputed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as an ASI on 1-8-1991. His deputation was periodically extended with the consent of both departments. In 1994 the CBI indicated a desire to absorb him permanently, and the CRPF conveyed its clearance.
During deputation, the appellant was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (SI) in CBI on 1-6-1995 and was similarly promoted in the CRPF. He underwent the CBI’s screening process for absorption, representing himself as a graduate. The Screening Committee recommended his absorption based on that representation. When asked to produce original documents, he claimed that senior secondary education was sufficient and a degree was unnecessary, revealing that he was not, in fact, a graduate.
Because the governing instructions limit deputation in the ASI/SI rank to five years and owing to the false educational claim, the CBI repatriated him to the CRPF, relieving him on 31-1-1999. He challenged the repatriation in OA No. 241/1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his claim on 16-4-1999. His writ petition to the Delhi High Court was dismissed on 26-7-1999. The present appeal before the Supreme Court followed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a deputationist has a vested right to be permanently absorbed in the borrowing department absent a statutory rule mandating such absorption.
- Whether the appellant’s failure to possess the prescribed educational qualification (a degree) invalidated his claim for absorption in the CBI.
- Whether the CBI’s order repatriating the appellant after five years of deputation was legally sustainable.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Claimed that, as a service candidate with over ten years of service, he was exempt from the requirement of possessing a degree for absorption in the CBI.
- Asserted differential treatment, pointing to the absorption of officers such as N.N. (N.P.) Mishra and N.P. Pandey.
- Contended that he should not be repatriated because he had become indispensable to the CBI.
Respondent (CBI) Arguments
- Emphasised that deputation cannot exceed five years and that the appellant could be repatriated at any time.
- Maintained that absorption against a direct-recruit quota requires the same basic educational qualification—namely, a degree—prescribed for direct recruits.
- Argued that the appellant misrepresented himself as a graduate, casting doubt on his integrity and vitiating the Screening Committee’s earlier recommendation.
- Submitted that any erroneous absorption of other officers was being rectified and therefore provided no ground for the appellant’s claim.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rameshwar Prasad v. M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (1999) 8 SCC 381 | Absorption of deputationists when governed by specific statutory rules | Distinguished; the Court held the case inapplicable because the present matter lacked comparable statutory rules mandating absorption. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated that a deputationist has no inherent right to permanent absorption unless a statutory rule, regulation, or order confers such a right. The fundamental premise of deputation allows either department to repatriate the officer at any time.
The Court considered the appellant’s misrepresentation of his educational qualification to be decisive. The Screening Committee’s favourable recommendation was based on the belief that he was a graduate; once that premise proved false, the recommendation lost all force. The appellant’s evasive responses to this allegation further undermined his credibility.
On the legal merits, the Court affirmed that absorption against a direct-recruit quota in the CBI mandates possession of a degree, a requirement that cannot be waived merely because the officer has completed ten years of service elsewhere. Comparisons with officers promoted internally within the CBI were held irrelevant, as those promotions did not arise from deputation.
Finding no statutory basis for the appellant’s claim and noting his unreliable conduct, the Court concluded that the repatriation order was lawful and warranted.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s repatriation to the CRPF and confirmed that deputationists cannot claim absorption in the absence of a governing statutory provision. The decision resolves the dispute between the parties but sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming established principles on deputation and absorption.
Doraiswamy Raju, J.— Special leave granted.
2. The appellant, who lost before the Tribunal as well as the High Court, has come up before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court declining to interfere with the order dated 16-4-1999 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA No. 241 of 1999 which, in turn, repelled a challenge to the repatriation of the appellant to his parent department. The appellant, a member of CRPF and serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the said parent Department w.e.f 1-1-1987, joined the service of CBI on deputation in the same capacity as ASI on 1-8-1991. He continued to work as ASI on the deputation terms for the initial period, which came to be extended from time to time with the mutual consent of the lending and borrowing Department. In the year 1994, no doubt, the borrowing Department expressed an inclination for permanent absorption in CBI and sought for the concurrence of CRPF to which, it appears, the lending Department also conveyed its clearance.
3. It may be noticed at this stage that while on such deputation in CBI, the appellant was also appointed as Sub-Inspector on 1-6-1995 and in his parent Department also he was promoted as such. There are no specific statutory rules as such governing the question of absorption of a deputationist. On the other hand, the said subject is governed by departmental instructions and circular orders as per which the qualification and experience of the officers to be selected should be comparable to those prescribed for direct recruits to such posts where direct recruitment has also been prescribed as one of the methods of the appointment in the Recruitment Rules. In consonance with such procedure, the appellant was asked to undertake a written test. He made a formal application disclosing his credentials and on the basis of his performance in the written test, the record relating to the last five years' ACRs (Part I — Personal Data) for the period 1993-94 to 1997-98 in which the appellant mentioned about his basic educational qualification as BA and his performance in the interview, the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose recommended the absorption of the appellant in CBI as Sub-Inspector. But when the appellant was asked to produce the documents in original in support of his educational qualifications etc., the appellant started explaining that for a person of his standing in service the basic educational qualification of passing the senior secondary examination is enough and passing of the degree examination, may not be insisted upon. This was not only contrary to his earlier representation that he was a graduate but the Screening Committee's recommendation for absorption in CBI was also on the basis that the appellant was a graduate, as disclosed by him. This seems to have been taken also as proof of his doubtful integrity in furnishing wrong information about his educational qualification to be graduation to somehow gain absorption. Since, in terms of the relevant Rules the total period of deputation in the rank of ASI/SI including that of deputation in any other cadre/cadre post cannot be for more than five years, the appellant was repatriated to his parent Department and also relieved with effect from 31-1-1999 (AN) with a direction to report for duty to the parent Department. Apprehending the same, the appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA No. 241 of 1999.
4. The Tribunal by its order dated 16-4-1999, rejected the claim of the appellant holding that he had no vested right to absorption, that he was not totally an indispensable person in CBI and that he being not a graduate cannot be absorbed, under the relevant Rules. The grievance of alleged differential treatment has also been found to be not substantiated — in that the absorption erroneously made of N.N Mishra (a mistaken reference to N.P Mishra) is sought to be undone by already initiating action in that direction and that the case of N.P Pandey — a departmental officer has to be treated as regular promotion and not to be treated as a deputationist. It was ultimately held for those reasons that CBI cannot be compelled to absorb the appellant, and consequently the order of repatriation dated 29-1-1999 did not call for any interference. Not satisfied the appellant moved the Delhi High Court by means of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2533 of 1999 and a Division Bench of the High Court, by an order dated 26-7-1999 rejected the same observing that there are no merits in the petition and find no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal under challenge. Relentless, the appellant has approached this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.N Trivedi, learned Additional Solicitor General. The least said about the conduct of the appellant, the better for him. The appellant, indisputably, is only a deputationist so far as CBI is concerned and his parent Department is only CRPF and his substantive position and appointment is only in that Department and ordinarily a deputation, as per governing Rules, cannot last for a period more than five years. The frivolous claim that a person like him need not be a graduate for absorption and appointment in CBI, apart, the appellant appears to have rendered himself unreliable by making, to put it in the most mild terms, an incorrect representation of his basic educational qualification to be a graduate while factually it is not so, and this one ground, strongly urged is enough to non-suit him. This itself will be sufficient to disentitle him to even continue in CBI any longer. The Screening Committee which appears to have initially recommended for absorption also seems to have proceeded on the basis of the erroneous representation of the appellant of his basic educational qualification and the copy of the proceedings made available disclose this serious lapse and consequently no advantage can be claimed on the basis of the recommendation, made on a mistaken view of the facts more so, when such mistake was the making of the appellant himself. This assertion of the respondent CBI Department was specific and reiterated in unmistakable terms from the beginning before the Tribunal [vide paras 4(h) and 5 of the reply] and thereafter before the High Court in the counter filed [vide para 3(e)] and finally before this Court also [vide para 5(c) of the counter filed on behalf of the respondent]. Throughout, the response of the appellant to those assertions at various stages was evasive and nebulous and neither direct nor specific in refutation of the facts in particular. Being an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court will be justified in even rejecting this appeal, on this ground alone.
6. On the legal submissions also made there are no merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for a permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory rule, regulation or order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. The reference to the decision reported in Rameshwar Prasad v. M.D, U.P Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (1999) 8 SCC 381 is inappropriate since the consideration therein was in the light of the statutory Rules for absorption and the scope of those Rules. The claim that he need not be a graduate for absorption and being a service candidate, on completing service of 10 years he is exempt from the requirement of possessing a degree needs mention, only to be rejected. The stand of the respondent Department that the absorption of a deputationist being one against the direct quota, the possession of basic educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment i.e a degree is a must and essential and that there could be no comparison of the claim of such a person with one to be dealt with on promotion of a candidate who is already in service in that Department is well merited and deserves to be sustained and we see no infirmity whatsoever in the said claim.
7. For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit in this appeal which shall stand dismissed. No costs.
Alert