STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a petition filed by one Talvir Singh challenging order of his repatriation to his parent department dated July 13, 2021 and order No. 254/2021 dated July 14, 2021 directing him to report for further duties to Director General, BSF, New Delhi, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that it is exclusive discretion of parent department to accept or reject any request of absorption. The significant judgment was passed by Justice Sindhu Sharma.
In the petition, the applicant requested that he is aggrieved of these orders on the ground that the same are in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also submitted that he has rendered outstanding service for more than 8 years with the respondent-CBI and has also cleared the Personal Assessment Test for his permanent absorption. He, accordingly, applied for extension of his deputation to concerned authorities, for which NoC was given by the parent department and a recommendation was also made in his favour. According to him, respondent-CBI has not adopted uniform criteria for absorption of all eligible persons in the organization. They have been absorbing similarly situated persons but denied the same benefits to the petitioner. He further submitted that respondents all along have been regularizing overstay of the similarly situated persons by granting post-facto NoC also in their favour for permanent absorption but have arbitrarily refused the same to petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner continued working with CBI even after expiry of his tenure on August 24, 2018, therefore, had a legitimate expectation of his absorption in CBI.
Justice Sindhu Sharma, after hearing Adv Rajesh Bhushan for petitioner whereas ASGI Vishal Sharma for the Union of India, observed that a requisition made by borrowing Organisation/ Department or willingness tendered by a person for absorption, will not automatically confer any right on an individual or borrowing department to claim absorption as a matter of right.
The discretion to accept or reject, a request for absorption, will be exclusively with parent CAPF or Cadre Controlling Authority, i.e., Ministry of Home Affairs as the case may be. In case of Subordinate Officers and Other Ranks, the proposals for absorption shall be decided by the Director General of the CAPF concerned in consultation with Ministry of Home Affairs. The Court further said that the policy guidelines in paragraph 19 also provide that any personnel aggrieved by rejection of permanent absorption in force can prefer a representation immediately to their parent cadre organization.
While dismissing petition, Justice Sindhu Sharma observed that from the perusal of policy guidelines, it is clear that discretion to accept or reject a request for cadre controlling authority will exclusively be with the parent department i.e., CAPF or Cadre Controlling Authority i.e., Ministry of Home Affairs. The Cadre Controlling Authority after considering all aspects conveyed its refusal of NoCs for 69 Constables and directed respondent to repatriate and relieve them.