- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India v. S.N Panikar .
Factual and Procedural Background
The Union of India appealed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 24-4-1992 in OA No. 1001 of 1991. The Tribunal had directed the Union Government to absorb the respondent, Shri S.N. Panikar, in the post of Deputy Director (Development) with effect from 1-1-1990, the date on which the last period of his deputation formally ended.
Under Recruitment Rules framed pursuant to the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the post of Deputy Director (Development) was to be filled only by direct recruitment. Rule 6 of those Rules empowered the Central Government to relax provisions for reasons recorded in writing and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The respondent, already serving in the Department, was initially appointed to the post on deputation pursuant to a relaxation under Rule 6 after due consultation with UPSC.
Upon expiry of the deputation period, the Department requested UPSC to continue the respondent on deputation. By letter dated 23-4-1990, UPSC refused the request. The respondent then approached the Tribunal, which concluded that, since his deputation had been made in relaxation of the direct recruitment requirement and in consultation with UPSC, he had a right to hold the post in terms of the appointment and was not an ad hoc appointee. The Tribunal accordingly directed his absorption from 1-1-1990.
While the matter was pending, the respondent was reverted by a competent authority on 17-10-1994 and subsequently superannuated on 31-5-1995.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a deputationist appointed under a relaxation of Recruitment Rules that otherwise require direct recruitment acquires a right to hold the post on a regular basis or to be absorbed.
- Whether the Tribunal could deem the decision to fill the post by transfer on deputation as a relaxation authorizing absorption, notwithstanding the Rules requiring direct recruitment.
- Whether, in light of the respondent’s reversion and superannuation, the authorities should be directed to consider grant of post-retiral benefits by treating him as a Deputy Director (Development).
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent’s Counsel’s Alternative Submission
- Requested a direction to the authorities to consider the grant of post-retiral benefits by treating the respondent as a Deputy Director (Development).
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized the binding nature of the statutory Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309, which stipulate that the post of Deputy Director (Development) must be filled exclusively by direct recruitment. Rule 6 permits the Central Government to relax the Rules only for reasons recorded in writing and in consultation with UPSC, a requirement that aligns with the role of UPSC in conducting direct recruitment.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the Government’s exercise of relaxation, in consultation with UPSC, was for a limited and specific purpose: to fill the post on deputation for a defined period, notwithstanding the Rule mandating direct recruitment. This limited relaxation did not confer on the deputationist any right to the post or to absorption on a permanent basis.
The Court rejected the Tribunal’s conclusion that the respondent had a right to hold the post according to the terms of his appointment and that he was not an ad hoc appointee. It characterized that conclusion as contrary to service jurisprudence and to the governing Rules. The Tribunal’s further view—deeming that the decision to fill the post by transfer on deputation should be treated as a relaxation allowing absorption—was also held erroneous because the relaxation was confined to enabling deputation, not to bypass direct recruitment for regular appointment.
The Court also noted that the respondent himself had written to the Ministry of Agriculture requesting regular appointment and, in case of delay, continuation of his ad hoc appointment, which underscored that even he did not possess or assert an inherent right to regular absorption.
Given that UPSC expressly declined to extend the deputation by its letter dated 23-4-1990, and considering the limited scope of the relaxation, the respondent could not claim a right to be absorbed or to continue in the post after the deputation period ended. On this foundation, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s direction for absorption.
Regarding the alternative submission seeking consideration of post-retiral benefits by treating the respondent as Deputy Director (Development), the Court, in view of the foregoing conclusions on the absence of any right to the post or absorption, found it difficult to accept the request and declined to issue such a direction.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing absorption of the respondent as Deputy Director (Development) with effect from 1-1-1990 is set aside; the appeal by the Union of India is allowed. The alternative request to direct consideration of post-retiral benefits by treating the respondent as Deputy Director (Development) is rejected. No costs.
Implications: The respondent’s absorption is not recognized; his reversion stands, and he cannot be treated as having held the post of Deputy Director (Development) for purposes such as post-retiral benefits. The decision applies the existing Recruitment Rules and the limited scope of relaxation under Rule 6; no broader implications or new precedent beyond the parties’ case are discussed.
Order
1. The Union of India is the appellant against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 24-4-1992 passed in OA No. 1001 of 1991. By the impugned order the Tribunal directs the Union Government to absorb the respondent in the post of Deputy Director (Development) w.e.f the date when the last period of his deputation formally ended i.e w.e.f 1-1-1990.
2. The post of Deputy Director (Development) could be filled up only by direct recruitment under the relevant Recruitment Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Recruitment Rules, inter alia, Rule 6 confers powers of relaxation on the Central Government and such relaxation has to be given for reasons recorded in writing and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (for short “UPSC”). Consultation with UPSC is necessary obviously because the direct recruitment has to be made after selecting the candidate through UPSC. The respondent, who was serving in the Department, was sent on deputation after due consultation with UPSC in exercise of the power of relaxation under Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules. But after the period of deputation was over, when the Department requested UPSC for further continuance of the respondent on deputation, UPSC refused the request of the Union Government and informed the Union Government that UPSC has not agreed to the extension of period of deputation of Shri S.N Panikar (the respondent herein) in the post of Deputy Director (Development) by its letter dated 23-4-1990. The respondent thereafter approached the Tribunal which came to the conclusion that the deputation itself having been made by the Union Government in consultation with UPSC in relaxation of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules providing for direct recruitment, the applicant must be held to have a right to hold the post according to the terms and conditions of appointment and he was not an ad hoc appointee and the respondents were not right in terming his appointment as ad hoc. This conclusion of the Tribunal is contrary to the service jurisprudence and to the relevant rules under which the respondent was sent on deputation to the post of Deputy Director (Development). The further conclusion of the Tribunal that regardless of whether the formal order states it or not the decision to fill up the post by transfer on deputation should be deemed to be a decision taken in relaxation of the Recruitment Rules as provided in Rule 6, is also erroneous. The power of relaxation was exercised by the Union Government in consultation with UPSC for a limited purpose, namely, to fill up the post by taking somebody on deputation which otherwise required to be filled up only by direct recruitment. In that view of the matter, a deputationist cannot claim either a right to the post in question nor can he claim absorption on permanent basis to the post in question. In fact, the respondent himself has written to the Ministry of Agriculture, Union of India, requesting therein that he should be appointed on regular basis and appropriate order of the Government should be issued in that respect, and in case there is any delay, then the ad hoc appointment of his should be continued. The Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution having specifically indicated that the post of Deputy Director could be filled up only by way of direct recruitment and the relaxation obtained in the case in hand being only for the purpose of filling up the post by way of deputation for a limited period, no right can be claimed by the deputationist to the said post and in this view of the matter, the impugned direction of the Tribunal directing the Union Government to absorb the respondent with effect from a particular date in the post of Deputy Director on regular basis is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules. It transpires that while this matter was pending in this Court, the respondent was reverted by an order of the competent authority on 17-10-1994 and he had, in the meantime, superannuated from service on 31-5-1995.
3. In the aforesaid premises, it would be difficult for us to accept the alternative submission of Mr Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, to direct the authorities to consider the grant of post-retiral benefits treating him to be a Deputy Director (Development). In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and this appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Alert