TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Decision on Chief Engineer Repatriation & Promotion Criteria</h1> <h3>U.O.I. Thr. Govt. of Pondicherry & Anr. Versus V. Ramakrishnan & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and Tribunal regarding the repatriation of the First Respondent, affirming his right to hold the ... Whether as the First Respondent was sent on deputation pending selection of the regular incumbent by the UPSC; till such regular selection is made, he had a right to hold the said post? Issues Involved:1. Legality of repatriation of the First Respondent.2. Eligibility criteria for the post of Chief Engineer.3. Validity of the draft rules and their application.4. Right of the First Respondent to hold the post during the deputation period.5. Adherence to procedural rules during the amendment of the original application.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Repatriation of the First Respondent:The First Respondent was appointed on deputation as Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, Government of Pondicherry, on a short-term basis pending selection by the UPSC. He was repatriated to his parent department on 14.2.2005. The original application filed by the First Respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) sought to quash this repatriation order as illegal and unconstitutional. The Tribunal directed that the Recruitment Rules be followed strictly when filling the post of Chief Engineer on a regular basis. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the First Respondent had a right to hold the post until a regular selection was made by the UPSC.2. Eligibility Criteria for the Post of Chief Engineer:R. Sundar Raju, who was holding the current charge of Chief Engineer, challenged the deputation of the First Respondent, claiming that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. The Tribunal dismissed this application, stating that a regular appointment was yet to take place. Draft rules were later framed, reducing the eligibility experience from five years to three years, under which R. Sundar Raju was promoted on an ad hoc basis. However, the First Respondent questioned this promotion, leading to further legal scrutiny.3. Validity of the Draft Rules and Their Application:The draft rules were approved and notified on 28.9.2005, during the pendency of the matter. The Solicitor General argued that the First Respondent had no legal right to hold the post once the rules were approved and that the draft rules could be acted upon to meet urgent situations when no rule was operating. The Supreme Court noted that draft rules could be acted upon provided there was a clear intention to enforce them soon. However, the new rules could not be given retrospective effect, and promotions should adhere to the criteria prescribed under the existing rules until the new rules were enforced.4. Right of the First Respondent to Hold the Post During the Deputation Period:The First Respondent argued that deputation is a mode of recruitment, and he had a legal right to continue as Chief Engineer until a regular appointment was made. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that a deputationist has no legal right to be absorbed permanently but can hold the post for the term specified unless there are just grounds for curtailment. The High Court and Tribunal found no error in this reasoning, affirming the First Respondent's right to hold the post during the deputation period.5. Adherence to Procedural Rules During the Amendment of the Original Application:The Appellants contended that the amendment of the original application was permitted without giving them an opportunity to file a reply, violating Rule 12 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. However, the Supreme Court noted that this point was not raised before the High Court, and the issues involved were pure questions of law, which were addressed by both the Tribunal and the High Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court's judgment, which upheld the Tribunal's decision. The selection process for the post of Chief Engineer should be completed expeditiously in accordance with the law. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
