A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member.
1. Applicant who was appointed as Audit Officer in the Coconut Development Board on deputation basis while he was working in the Rubber Board, Kottayam, has filed this Original Application challenging Annexure A-13 order of his repatriation to his parent department. He contends that he has to be treated as "permanently absorbed" in the Coconut Development Board in view of the order of approval granted by the Ministry of Agriculture for such absorption, and prays for an appropriate declaration in this regard.
2. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed. The applicant had applied for the post of Audit Officer in the Coconut Development Board on deputation basis in response to Annexure A1 advertisement. On his selection and appointment to the above post, he joined the Coconut Development Board on October 15, 2009. The deputation was for a period of 3 years from the date of his appointment.
3. It is not in dispute that the applicant had made a request for extension of the term of his deputation and also for permanent absorption in the Coconut Development Board (for short "the CDB"). Accordingly, the Chairman of the CDB had sent Annexure A5 communication to the Chairman of the Rubber Board requesting to lend the services of the applicant for permanent absorption in the CDB. The above request was acceded to and the Rubber Board (for short "the Board") had issued Annexure A-6 'No Objection Certificate' for permanent absorption as Audit Officer. It is on record that the deputation period of the applicant was extended for one more year with effect from October 15, 2012.
4. In the meanwhile, the CDB had requested the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, to grant approval for absorption of the applicant in the CDB as Audit Officer on permanent basis. By Annexure A12 communication dated May 20, 2013, the Department of Agriculture had granted approval as requested. However, by Annexure A13 communication dated October 4, 2013, the CDB terminated the deputation of the applicant and repatriated him to his parent department viz. the Board with effect from October 4, 2013 in deference to the request made by the Board. The said order is impugned in this Original Application. Applicant further prays that the respondents be directed to treat him as though he had been permanently absorbed as Audit Officer in the CDB with effect from the date on which the Department of Agriculture had conveyed its approval for such absorption.
5. The respondents in their separate written statements have stoutly defended the decision taken to repatriate the applicant to his parent department. The CDB, while admitting that it had sought the approval of the Department of Agriculture for absorption of the applicant in its services on a permanent basis, has asserted that certain subsequent developments had persuaded the Board to review its earlier decision. Accordingly, no further action was taken for absorption and still later the Board of Directors had in its meeting held on December 14, 2013 decided to withdraw the earlier resolution passed by the Board in this regard. Similarly the Board, in its written statement, has stoutly defended its action in recalling the applicant on expiry of the extended period of his deputation. It is pointed out that the CDB had not sent any intimation as regards its proposal to absorb the applicant in its services on a permanent basis.
6. We have perused the materials available on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. Sri N.N.Sugunapalan, learned senior counsel who appears for the applicant, submits that the order of repatriation is totally illegal and vitiated. He contends that the action of the respondents smacks of malafides and is nothing but vindictive.
8. It may at once be noticed that the extended period of deputation of the applicant was admittedly due to expire on October 14, 2013. The Board, which is the lending authority had, in its wisdom, decided not to extend the period of his deputation any further and requested the borrowing authority, the CDB, to repatriate the applicant to his parent cadre, as could be seen from Annexure R2A communication dated October 3, 2013. It is true that the lending authority (the Board) had conveyed its 'no objection' to the borrowing authority (CDB) to absorb the applicant in its services on a permanent basis. But admittedly the CDB had not issued any order absorbing the applicant in its services, even though it had obtained approval from the Department of Agriculture for such absorption. Thus the fact remains that as on the date of issuance of the order of repatriation, the applicant was continuing in CDB as a deputationist. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, the applicant cannot be heard to say that he was not liable to be repatriated to his parent department, his aspiration for absorption in the CDB notwithstanding. In that view of the matter, the order for his repatriation is perfectly legal and valid and prayer made by the applicant for a direction to the respondents to treat him as though he had been absorbed in CDB cannot be countenanced at all.
9. It is trite that an employee does not get any right to be absorbed on a deputation post (See Ratilal B.Soni Vs. State of Gujarat - AIR 1990 SC 1132.)
10. In State of Punjab and Others Vs. Inder Singh and Others - (1997) 8 SCC 372, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held thus:-"18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department.Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules." (emphasis supplied by us)
11. In Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar (1999) 4 SCC 659, it has been held thus:-"8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not."
12. Thus the right of a deputationist having been clearly defined and delineated in law, we have no hesitation to hold that the contentions raised by the applicant are totally misconceived and untenable. The borrowing department (CDB) has, in unequivocal terms, made it clear that it does not need the services of the applicant any more. The lending authority viz. the Board has also made it abundantly clear that it does not intend to extend the period of deputation of the applicant any further. That settles the issue once and for all.
13. Original Application fails and it is accordingly dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.