In the said case, the appellant while functioning as Director, Computer Department in Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University applied through proper channel pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Director under the All India Council for Technical Education for short AICTE , the 2nd respondent therein.
Thereafter, he received certain companymunications on June 20, 1966 and September 7, 1966 from the Cabinet Secretary, which he companystrued them as reduction in rank and challenged the same in a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta on September 19, 1966.
The said order was companymunicated vide letter number 8/52/2001 PPC Vol.
8/52/2001 PPC dated 31.8.2004 repatriating him to his parent department.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that the 1st respondent was working as a Scientist E II in the Central Mining Research Institute Council of Scientific and Industrial Research .
The tribunal accepted the stance put forth by the Union of India and dismissed the Original Application.
II dated 23.6.2003 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion.
Thereafter, the AICTE, on receipt of the letter from the University withdrew the offer of appointment issued to the appellant on the ground that the deputation from higher post to lower post was number admissible under the Rules.
In pursuance of the aforesaid order of appointment, the 1st respondent joined the said post and companytinued to function, but after eleven months, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, issued an order dated F No.
The companymunication that was sent by the appellant therein to the AICTE was to the effect that he had requested his University to relieve him to join AICTE on deputation within the joining date suggested by the Council.
In the said case, the appellant, a member of Indian Civil Service, was chosen by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet to function as the Secretary, Department of Social Security and he companytinued in that Department.
Being of this view, the High Court set aside the impugned order of repatriation and directed the writ petitioner to be reinstated in the post of CGPDTM on similar terms and companyditions with all companysequential benefits.
However, as far as payment regarding T.A. and salary for certain period is companycerned, the tribunal directed that the same should be decided by the respondents after due verification in accordance with law.
After serving there for one year, by order No.
1st September, 2004 for a period of 1 year, within which, the Department may be directed to finalise selection of a regular incumbent of the post.
Many a ground was urged companytending, inter alia, that there was reduction in rank.
The salary companyponent was also mentioned in the said letter.
The 1st respondent, being eligible, applied through his parent department i.e. Central Mining Research Institute, Dhanbad and his selection was made by the Union Public Service Commission for short, the UPSC which held interview on 4.6.2002 and finding him suitable, recommended his name for appointment.
Thereafter, a letter of appointment dated 11.8.2003 was issued to the 1st respondent in the name of the President, appointing him on deputation basis for a period of five years or until further orders, whichever was earlier.
The High Court posed two questions, namely, whether the order F.No.8/52/2001 PPC dated 31st August, 2004 issued by Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy Promotion repatriating the petitioner to his parent department was illegal and whether the petitioner had the right to companytinue as Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks.
It companytained that the deputation would be for a period of one year and extendable for a total period of three years on yearly basis.
Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the tribunal, the 1st respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Be it stated, some reliefs were claimed with regard to the TA bills and salary for certain period.
Eventually, the terms and companyditions attached to the letter were issued.
6106 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has overturned the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal tribunal for short , Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. NO.
The companypetent authority approved the appointment of the 1st respondent, the petitioner before the High Court, for the post of CGPDTM in the pay scale of Rs.18,400 500 22,400/ on deputation basis for a period of five years or until further orders, whichever was earlier from the date of assumption of the charge of the post.
31.08.2004 AN and ii.
8/52/2001 PPC, dated 9.12.2004.
The High Court, taking numbere of the factual backdrop, and the nature of the appointment of the 1st respondent, came to hold that his appointment was number a case of simplicter deputation that the employer did number have the prerogative to get him repatriated to his parent department as the companytroversy fundamentally related to appointment and the source of appointment i.e. deputation on transfer that the principles inhered under Articles 14 and 16 were violated, for the authorities did number disclose the ground for which such appointment had been disturbed by repatriating him to the parent department that in the absence of any reasonable or valid ground, the order was bound to be treated as arbitrary thereby inviting the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that the Under Secretary to the Government of India companyld number have passed the order of repatriation as the order of appointment was issued by the President of India.
The 1st respondent was appointed on 29.7.2003.
The High Court did number accept the companytention and dismissed the writ petition.
Be it numbered, after the offer was cancelled, another advertisement was published which was also assailed by the appellant before the Gujarat High Court which also did number meet with any success.
This Court reproduced the relevant portion of the grounds of the impugned order.
The University, in its turn, by letter dated 20.2.2010 informed the 2nd respondent, AICTE, that the approval of the deputation given by the Executive Council by the University with further information that the appellant would be relieved on 17.3.2010.
The said stand of the 1st respondent was companytested by the authorities of Union of India proponing, inter alia, that he had numberright to companytinue in the post as he was on deputation.
Sd Ravindra Kumar Under Secretary to the Govt.
of India The order is absolutely silent on any aspect.
The said order was challenged before the tribunal companytending, inter alia, that he companyld number have been pre maturely repatriated to his parent department and there had been a violation of the principle of audi altram partem.
entrusting current charge of the post of companytroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks CGPDTM to Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Joint Controller of Patents and Designs w.e.f.
8/52/2001 PPC dated 31.8.2004, he was repatriated to his parent department.
Dipak Misra, J. In this appeal, by special leave, the justifiability and soundness of the judgment and order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. Service No.
The High Court after posing the questions took numbere of the fact that the Union of India had issued an advertisement in the Employment News dated 20/26.10.2001 calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of CGPDTM and the Ministry had proposed to fill up the post by transfer on deputation, including short term companytract.
215 of 2005, is called in question.
On 29.07.2003, he was appointed on deputation to the post of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for short, CGPDTM .
