ASHOK KUMAR RATILAL PATEL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 16-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012) 6 S.C.R. 545 
ASHOK KUMAR RATILAL PATEL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5225 of 2012) 
JULY 16, 2012 
[G.5. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law· - Appointment on deputation - Post of 
Director, A/GTE - Offer of appointment to appellant -
C 
Withdrawal of, on the ground that appellant was receiving 
higher pay scale in his parent department and deputation from 
higher post to lower post is not admissible - Challenged - Held: 
The High Court while· affirming the order of cancellation of offer 
of appointment failed to appreciate the difference between 
"appointment on deputation" and "transfer on deputation" -
The case of appellant is not a case of transfer on deputation 
- It is a case of appointment on deputation for which 
advertisement was issued and after d.ue selection, offer of 
appointment was issued in favour of the appellant - A person, 
who applies for appointment on deputation has indefeasible 
right to be treated fairly and equally and once such person is 
selected and offered with the letter of appointment on 
deputation, the same cannot be cancelled except on the 
ground of non-suitability or unsatisfactory work - Further, in the 
instant case there was no stipulation in the advertisement that 
a person receiving higher pay of scale or higher qualification 
D 
E 
F 
is ineligible for appointment on deputation - Once terms and 
conditions for deputation were· intimated, it was for the 
appellant to decide whether to accept the scale of pay as 
offered or to continue to receive fixed pay on deputation - As 
G 
appellant was selected after due selection and was offered 
appointment on deputation, and, in absence of any valid 
ground shown by the respondents, the appellant has a right 
545 
H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 
A to join the post and the respondents were bound to accept his 
joining. 
The appellant, a Director in the North Gujarat 
University in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000-420-18,300, 
8 applied for the appointment to the post of Director on 
deputation pursuant to an advertisement published by 
the 2nd respondent. By the said advertisement the 
candidates were informed that the pre-revised scale of 
pay of the post of Director is Rs.14,300-400-18,300 and 
C that the said scale of pay will be revised to the pay band 
+ Grade Pay of PB-4 Rs.37,000-67,000 + 8,700. 
The case of the appellant was considered along with 
others and after due selection the 2nd respondent issued 
an offer of appointment and the letter was forwarded to 
D the Registrar, North Gujarat University requesting the 
University to obtain acceptance of the above offer from 
the appellant and forward it to the Council (AICTE). The 
appellant informed the 2nd respondent his readiness and 
acceptance to join the post of Director, AICTE, New Delhi. 
E He also requested his parent University to relieve him to 
join· AICTE on deputation. The North Gujarat University 
in turn informed the 2nd respondent the approval of 
deputation given by the Executive Council of the North 
Gujarat University. The 2nd respondent was further 
F informed that the present basic pay of the appellant is 
Rs.19,100 in the pay scale of Rs.16,400-450-20,900-500-
22,400 and very shortly the same will be revised as per 
the 6th Pay Commission and will be fixed in Revised Pay 
Band + Academic Grade Pay of Rs.37,400 - 67,000 + 
G Rs.10,000. The 2nd respondent on receipt of the said 
letter issued letter withdrawing the offer of appointment 
of the appellant on the ground that deputation from 
higher post to lower post is not admissible under rules. 
The cancellation of offer of appointment was followed by 
another advertisement which. was challenged by the 
H 
ASHOK KUMAR RATILAL PATEL v. UNION OF INDIA 547 
AND ANR. 
appellant initially by filing a representation but having not A 
received any information he preferred a writ petition 
before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ 
petition on the ground that the appellant has no right to 
claim entitlement to the post of Director and cannot 
compel the respondent to take him on deputation and 
8 
thus affirmed the order of cancellation of offer of 
appointment as was issued to the appellant. 
In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that 
his case was not a case of transfer on deputation but was 
a case of appointment on deputation after following all 
C 
due procedures for appointment and selection; that in 
absence of any ill

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.