KUNAL NANDA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 24-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KUNALNANDA 
~ 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
APRIL 24, 2000 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
'.,,( 
Deputation Right to pennanent absorption-A member of CRPF was 
c 
sent on deputation to CBI-Subsequently, he was approved for pennanent 
absorption on his representation that he was a graduate-However, he did not 
produce the graduation certificate stating that for a person of his standing a 
degree should not he insisted upon-CBI doubted his integrity and, therefore, 
instead of pennanent absorption repatriated him to his parent department-
Validity-Held : A deputationist does not have a vested right for pennanent 
D 
absorption in the borrowing department unless his pennanent absorption is 
based upon a statutory provision of rule or regulation-Hence, CBI rightly 
refused his pennanent absorption. 
Appellant, a member of CRPF, joined the service of CBI on deputa-
E 
ti on and his permanent absorption in CBI was approved on his representa-
tion that he was a graduate. However, he did not produce the graduation 
certificate and stated that for a person of his standing a degree should not 
be insisted upon. CBI doubted his integrity and, therefore, instead of 
permanent absorption the appellant was repatriated to his parent depart-
ment. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim 
F 
for permanent absorption. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ 
"I 
petition. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
.. 
G 
HELD : 1. Itis well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for 
permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is 
based upon any statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having the force of law, 
-t 
a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in his claim for absorption. A 
' 
deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent de-
partment at the instance of either the borrowing department or the parent 
H 
department and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long 
214 
'
KUNAL NANDA v. U.0.1. [RAJU, J.] 
215 
on deputation or get absorbed in the borrowing department. [217-G-H] 
A 
Rameshwar Prasad v. M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Ninnan Nigam Ltd., [1999] 8 
sec 381, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2895 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.99 of the Delhi High Court 
in W.P.(C) No. 2533 of 1999. 
S.K. Bisaria, Sarvesh Bisaria and Satya Matar for the Appellant. 
R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Mrs. Binu Tamta, 
P. Parmeshwaran and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJU, J. Special leave granted. 
The appellant, who lost before the Tribunal as well as the High Court, 
has come up before this Court challenging the judginent of the High Court 
declining to interfere with the order dated 16.4.99 of the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 241 of 1999 which, 
in turn, repelled a challenge to the repatriation of the appellant to his parent 
department. The appellant, a member of CRPF and serving as an Assistant 
Sub-Inspector in the said parent department w.e.f. 1.1.87, joined the service 
of CBI on deputation in the same capacity as ASI on 1.8.91. He continued to 
work as ASI on the deputation terms for the initial period, which came to be 
extended from time to time with the mutual consent of the lending and 
borrowing department. In the year 1994, no doubt, the borrowing department 
expressed an inclination for permanent absorption in the CBI and sought for 
the concurrence of the CRPF to which, it appears, the lending department also 
conveyed its clearance. 
It may be noticed at this stage that while on such deputation in the CBI, 
the appellant was also appointed as Sub-Inspector on 1.6.95 and in his parent 
department also he was promoted as such. There are no specific statutory rules 
as such governing the question of absorption of a deputationist. On the other 
hand, the said subject is governed by departmental instructions and circular 
orders as per which the qualification and experience of the Officers to be 
selected should be comparable to those prescribed for direct recruits to such 
posts where direct recruitment has also been prescribed as one of the methods 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
of the appointment in the Recruitment Rules. In consonance with such 
procedure, the appellant was asked

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