KUNAL NANDAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

 A                              KUNALNANDA                                             ~

                                       v.
                            UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                                    APRIL 24, 2000

 B             [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.]

                                                                                       '.,,(
           Service Law :

           Deputation Right to pennanent absorption-A member of CRPF was
     sent on deputation to CBI-Subsequently, he was approved for pennanent
 c   absorption on his representation that he was a graduate-However, he did not
     produce the graduation certificate stating that for a person of his standing a
     degree should not he insisted upon-CBI doubted his integrity and, therefore,
     instead of pennanent absorption repatriated him to his parent department-
     Validity-Held : A deputationist does not have a vested right for pennanent
 D   absorption in the borrowing department unless his pennanent absorption is
     based upon a statutory provision of rule or regulation-Hence, CBI rightly
     refused his pennanent absorption.

            Appellant, a member of CRPF, joined the service of CBI on deputa-
     ti on and his permanent absorption in CBI was approved on his representa-
 E
     tion that he was a graduate. However, he did not produce the graduation
     certificate and stated that for a person of his standing a degree should not
     be insisted upon. CBI doubted his integrity and, therefore, instead of
     permanent absorption the appellant was repatriated to his parent depart-
     ment. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim
 F   for permanent absorption. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ             "I
     petition. Hence this appeal.

           Dismissing the appeal, this Court
                                                                                               .
          HELD : 1. Itis well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for
 G
     permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is
     based upon any statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having the force of law,        -t
     a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in his claim for absorption. A
     deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent de-

'H   partment at the instance of either the borrowing department or the parent
     department and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long
                                          214
                     KUNAL NANDA v. U.0.1. [RAJU, J.]                      215
on deputation or get absorbed in the borrowing department. [217-G-H]               A

      Rameshwar Prasad v. M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Ninnan Nigam Ltd., [1999] 8
sec 381, held inapplicable.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2895 of 2000.
                                                                                   B
     From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.99 of the Delhi High Court
in W.P.(C) No. 2533 of 1999.

      S.K. Bisaria, Sarvesh Bisaria and Satya Matar for the Appellant.

      R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Mrs. Binu Tamta,
P. Parmeshwaran and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents.
                                                                                   c
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      RAJU, J. Special leave granted.

      The appellant, who lost before the Tribunal as well as the High Court,       D
has come up before this Court challenging the judginent of the High Court
declining to interfere with the order dated 16.4.99 of the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. 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            E
Sub-Inspector in the said parent department w.e.f. 1.1.87, joined the service
of CBI on deputation in the same capacity as ASI on 1.8.91. 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 the CBI and sought for        F
the concurrence of the CRPF to which, it appears, the lending department also
conveyed its clearance.

      It may be noticed at this stage that while on such deputation in the CBI,
the appellant was also appointed as Sub-Inspector on 1.6.95 and in his parent
                                                                                   G
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      H
    216                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A    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 perform-
     ance in the written test, the record relating to last five years' A.C.Rs. (Part-
     1 - Personal Data) for the period 1993-94 to 1997-98 in which the appellant
     mentioned about his basic educational qualification as B .A. and his perform-
B    ance in the interview, the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose ·
     recommended the absorption of the appellant in the 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
c    passing Senior Secondary Examination is enough and passing of 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
D
     educational qualification to be graduation to some how 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 31.1.99. (A.N.) with a direction to report
E    for duty to the parent department. Apprehending the same, the appellant
     moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in
     O.A. No. 241 of 99.

            The Tribunal by its order dated 16.4.99, rejected the claim of the
     appellant holding that he had no vested right to absorption, that he was not
F                                                                                        1
     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
G    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 the CBI cannot be compelled to absorb the appellant, and
     consequently the order of repatriation dated 29.1.99 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
H
                     KUNAL NANDA v. U.0.1. [RAJU, J.]                       217
Court, by an order dated 26.7.99 rejected the same observing that there are no      A
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.

        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 is better for him. The appellant, indisputably, is only a deputationist B
so far as CBI is concerned and his parent department is only CRPF and his
substantive position and appointnient 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            C
rendered himself unreliable by making, to put it in 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 dis-entitle him to even continue
in the CBI any longer. The Screening Committee which appears to have
initially recommended for absorption also seem to have proceeded on the basis D
of the erroneous representation of the appellant of his basic educational
qualification and the copy of the proceedings made available discloses 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             E
respondent-CBI Department was specific and reiterated in unmistakable terms
from the beginning before the Tribunal (vide para 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
                                                                                   F
assertions at various stages was evasive and nebulous and neither direct nor
specific in refutation of facts in particular. Being an appeal under Act 136 of
the Constitution of India, this Court will be justified in even rejecting this
appeal, on this ground alone.

       On the legal submissi'!ns made also there are no merits whatsoever. It       G
is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for pennanent
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   H
    218                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2000) 3 S.C.R.
A   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 Ninnan Nigam Ltd. and
    Others, [1999) 8 SCC 381 is inappropriate since, the consideration therein was
    in the light of statutory rules for absorption and the scope of those rules. The
B
    claim that he need not be a graduate for absorption and being a service
    c;mdidate, on completing service of 10 years he is exempt from the require-
    ment of possessing a degree need 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
c   prescribed for direct recruitment i.e., a degree is a must and essential and that
    there could 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.
D          For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit in this appeal which
    shall stand dismissed. No costs.

    V.S.S.                                                       Appeal dismissed.