Cadre protection in public service: police officer could not be deputed to Civil Defence without consent.

A police inspector could not be posted to the Civil Defence Organisation outside the police cadre without consent, because deputation to another department is not unilateral and must fit the governing service scheme. The court treated the Civil Defence Organisation as a separate body with distinct functions, and held that a general rule allowing employment "in any manner" could not be read to authorise placement outside the parent department in a way that would conflict with equality and fair treatment in public service. The Civil Defence Act and regulations also indicated that only fit and willing persons could serve, and police personnel were not ordinarily eligible. The impugned posting and continuance of deputation were therefore illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Police Inspector could be posted or deputed to the Civil Defence Organisation outside the police force without his consent, and whether the impugned order and resolution continuing such deputation were valid.

Analysis: A member of the police force is appointed to a defined cadre and is entitled to discharge duties within that cadre, subject to lawful transfer within the service structure. The expressions in the service rules empowering the Government to employ a servant "in any manner" cannot be read so widely as to authorise placement outside the parent department or outside the cadre, because such a construction would conflict with the constitutional guarantees of equality and fair treatment in public service. The Civil Defence Organisation was held to be a separate organisation with distinct functions, and the petitioner, though retained in lien in the police service, was directed to serve there as an Instructor, which was not police duty. The Civil Defence Act permits appointment only of persons who are fit and willing to serve, and the regulations also indicated that police personnel were not ordinarily eligible for enrollment. On principle, deputation to another department is not unilateral and requires the employee's consent; Rule 74 of the Police Manual did not assist the State because it dealt with recruitment by transfer into the police force, not out of it.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be transferred or deputed to the Civil Defence Organisation without his consent, and the impugned posting and continuance of deputation were illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: A Government servant belonging to a defined cadre cannot be sent outside the parent department or cadre on deputation or transfer without consent, and a general service rule cannot be construed to defeat constitutional equality or the statutory scheme governing the service.

---