AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 17.04.2006 as confirmed by the order of
the first respondent dated 01.05.2006, directing the respondents to grant extension of deputation for one more year to the petitioner.
The petitioner has joined as a Programme Associate in the respondent center which is an autonomous body, organized for promoting Non-
formal, Adult & Continuing Education and also to provide technical support in the areas of training material development, research and evaluation
and the organization is 100% aided by the Government of India. The petitioner performed as Associate programme Co-ordinator on 01.05.1995
and he has been in charge of programme coordinator Head of Department of Post Literacy and continuing education department for 6 months.
Thereafter he was reverted back to the regular post of Associate Programme Co-ordinator.
Applications were called for the post of programme officer-communication by AIDS Prevention and Control (APAC) project administrated by
Voluntary Health Service, Chennai, with financial assistance of United States Agency for International development (USAID) on bi-lateral
agreement with Government of India that was created for the purpose of creating awareness on STI/HIV/AIDS. The petitioner has applied for the
post of Programme Officer communication after obtaining no objection certificate and the petitioner was selected and appointed. The petitioner
was relieved by the respondent to join on deputation under the said project for four years ending upto 02.05.2006. After the period came to an
end the petitioner has requested for extension of the same for one more year, since in the deputed body he was incharge of behavior changes in
communication and mass media related communication activities and he has also taken special initiatives as a model. It is in the complete stage of
project that he needs one more year. The object of the project is to address both literates illiterates, neo-literates both in Tamil Nadu and
Pondicherry to improve the quality of life as envisaged by the National Literacy Mission. The second phase of his project is almost at an end and
therefore, it was required atleast to have one more year. While so, the second respondent by the order dated 17.02.2006 has rejected the request
which has been confirmed by the first respondent in the order dated 17.04.2006 without assigning any reason. It is challenging the said orders, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition on various grounds including that it is arbitrary and illegal and it is against the social benevolent concept
since if the petitioner leave in the middle of the project there will be no use to public at large. It is also the case of the petitioner that he is losing the
salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month in the deputed organization by virtue of the contact of the respondent in denying permission for extending the
term for one more year.
Mr. C. Selvaraj learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while it is the governing body as a whole the respondent
has to take a decision. The impugned order of the second respondent dated 17.02.2006 rejecting the claim of the extension of deputation itself
shows that the Government of India representative has objected the extension of deputation and therefore the plea of deputation was rejected. He
would also contend that the first respondent by the order dated 01.05.2006 has also referred about the decision of the governing body of the
respondent dated 08.12.2004 stating that the governing body has already taken decision about the deputation and therefore the period of
deputation of the petitioner cannot be extended by one more year. He would also submit that the order of the second respondent dated
17.02.2006 itself is passed by a person who is holding the post as in charge in the state resources center. Therefore, according to the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, admittedly, the governing body has not taken a decision and it is only on objection of one of the
members, the impugned order came to be passed.
On the other hand, Mr. S. Muthukumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that inasmuch as in minutes of meeting of
the Governing body of the respondent dated 08.12.2004 it has been decided that the deputation in respect of one Dr. S. Balasubramaniyan cannot
be extended, the same analogy will apply to the petitioner also and therefore, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the petitioner to claim
the deputation, especially in the circumstances that the original period of deputation of four years has admittedly come to an end. According to the
learned Counsel, it is not open to the petitioner to claim the extension of deputation as a matter of right and it is for the parent department, namely,
the respondent to decide the same since the issue involves so many factors. It is also the case of the learned Counsel for the respondent that it is
not as if the deputation department alone is working on the social cause but on the other hand the respondent itself is created as a non
Governmental organization funded with 100% fund for the Government of India for doing social benefactions. The learned Counsel for the
respondent has also produced the office memorandum of the Government of India in respect of the right of deputation and said that the period of
deputation cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Counsel who is appearing for the respondent and perused the
entire documents.
A reference to the rule relating to the deputation which is stated to be applicable to the respondent organization has been produced by the
learned Counsel for the respondent is shown in paragraph 4 (the deputation) which reads as follows:
Deputation.- ''Deputation'' for purpose of drawal of ''Deputation(Duty) Allowance'' will cover appointments made in public interest outside the
normal field of deployment-
(i) on a temporary transfer basis to other posts in the same or other Central Government Departments and State Governments; and
(ii) on temporary transfer on foreign service to Bodies (incorporated or not) wholly or substantially owned or controlled by Government and
Organizations, e.g., Municipalities, Universities, etc.
Deputation (Duty) Allowance is treated as ''Special Pay'' as defined in FR9(25).
Period of Deputation.-The deputation will be for a maximum of three years. Deputation to other Ministries/Departments for the fourth year may be
granted with the approval of the Secretary of the borrowing Ministry. Extension for one year beyond the fourth year requires the approval of the
Minister of the borrowing Ministry; but no Deputation Allowance is admissible for that period.
Extension.-Proposals for extensions beyond the period prescribed in the Recruitment Rules should be sent to the Department of Personnel and
Training only in rare and exceptional circumstances where extension in the period of deputation is considered absolutely necessary. The proposal
should be sent with the approval of the Minister of the borrowing department at least three months before the expiry of the extended tenure, with
full particulars.-OM, dated 3.11.2004.
It is admitted that the deputation order either issuance of the order of the deputation or extension of the deputation lies the governing body of the
respondent.
As it is elicited, the rules relating to the deputation which is applicable to the respondent permit that in rare and exceptional circumstances where
the deputation is considered absolutely necessary, the proposal should be send to the approval of the Minister of the borrowing department and
the same has to be considered. Therefore, it is not as if the extension of deputation cannot be considered at all at any circumstances but such
power of granting extension in exceptional circumstances is always available with the governing body, by following the procedure as stated above.
According to the learned Counsel for the respondent a reference to the impugned order show that the governing body has in fact taken a decision
on 08.12.2004 in not extending the period of deputation to the petitioner. In fact the respondent has also produced in the typed set of papers, the
said resolution of the governing body of the respondent dated 08.12.2004. The resolution of the governing body dated 08.12.2004 filed by the
respondent and reliance placed on item No. 60 of the said resolution by the learned Counsel for the respondent shows as follows:
Deputation of Dr. S. Balasubramanian to TNOU
Reiterating the contractual nature of staffing in SRC, the Government of India representative made it clear that deputation cannot be granted to a
staff in SRC and hence, the staff already on deputation may be requested to return back to SRC or else resign the position in SRC.
It is based on that decision which was taken in respect of the extension of deputation requested in respect of one Dr. S. Balasubramanian, the
present impugned order has been passed by the respondent stating as if the governing body has taken a general decision regarding deputation.
Therefore, it is clear that the governing body have not considered the claim of the petitioner for extension at all in the individual character. It is
relevant because as per the rules enumerated above, it is only in the individual cases the extension of deputation can be granted.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, based on the general decision taken as per the said rules stated above or decision taken in
respect of another individual for whom the deputation was rejected, one cannot come to a safe conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the
consideration of extension of period of deputation. It is true that the continuance of extension of deputation is not a matter of light of the petitioner
but in the circumstances that the respondent has relied upon a rule which empowers the governing board to consider the individual circumstances
for the purpose of extension of deputation in exceptional case, in my view the respondent ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner and
find out whether there is any exceptional circumstance at all. In this regard, it is also relevant to point out that the very purpose of claiming
extension of the deputation by the petitioner is that he is involved in a project regarding AIDS programme and requires few more months for the
purpose of concluding the project and that project will be of useful for the society at large. On the other hand, if the petitioner leaves the project in
the middle, it cannot be use for the public as such. Therefore, according to the petitioner there is exceptional circumstances in existence and the
same has not be considered by the respondents.
In view of the same the writ petition is ordered, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the purpose of extension of
his period of deputation for one year from 02.05.2006 in the light of the orders relating to deputation as enumerated above which has to be
decided by the governing counsel in accordance with the procedure laid down there and such order shall be passed by the respondents within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms setting aside the impugned orders of the respondents dated 17.04.2006 and 01.05.2006.