Summary of Judgement

The Judgement

(PER : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR , J.)

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for both the parties. The matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the office order dated 07/03/2023 pursuant to which the petitioner has been posted from the National Disaster Response Force Academy (for the brevity ‘NDRF Academy’) at Nagpur to the National Disaster Response Force, Battalion at Baroda.

4. The petitioner was appointed by respondent No.4/CRPF on the post of Sub Inspector. Thereafter, he was selected as Assistant Commandant in December 2006 and presently is working as Deputy Commandant. The respondent No.1 sought to create a NDRF Academy at Nagpur. It merged the existing National Civil Defense College. Said Academy was established for specific purpose of imparting training in disaster management. In addition to 56 existing posts in National Civil Defense College, 36 posts were to be filled by transferring them from other Armed forces. Accordingly, office of respondent No.2 sought to fill up 36 posts of Instructors from Central Armed Police Forces by deputation for filling up the posts of Instructors. It issued a communication with respect to payment of deputation allowances to such personnel. The respondent No.2 again issued communication to the Heads of Central Armed Forces including respondent No.4, wherein the respondent No.2 contended that the NDRF Academy is facing hardship in imparting training in handling of radiological, biological and chemical emergencies due to shortage of staff and sought to fill up the said posts.

5. It is contention of the petitioner that after obtaining consent from his parent cadre, the petitioner was sought to be selected as Instructor in NDRF institution at Nagpur for imparting training in field of radiological, biological and chemical emergencies. The respondent No.4 CRPF issued an order dated 07/01/2020 deputing the petitioner amongst other from his CRPF Battalion to NDRF Academy at Nagpur. He was relieved on 26/06/2020 with a direction to report to NDRF Academy at Nagpur. On 07/03/2023, respondent No.2 has issued an order transferring the petitioner from the post of Instructor at NDRF Academy Nagpur to 06 Battalion stationed at Baroda. 6. It is contended by learned Counsel for petitioner that petitioner during his service with the CRPF has acquired specialization in handling of radiological, biological and chemical emergencies. His deputation was therefore based upon this quality. He also rendered unblemished service and received several awards including the Union Home Minister Medal for Excellence in Police Training. It is submitted that while issuing order of transfer, no guidelines followed which are meant for all such personnel, who are working on deputation by the Government of India. It is vehemently submitted that respondent No.2 has no authority to transfer the petitioner from his present posting for which he was specifically deputed by his parent department to its own unit.

7. Learned Counsel for petitioner relied on following citations:- 1) State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others, (1997) 8 SCC 372 2) Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and another Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and others, (2005) 8 SCC 394 3) Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India and another, (2012) 7 SCC 757 4) Sarita Singh Vs. M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited, 2022 LawSuit (SC) 69

8. In reply, Shri N.S. Deshpande, learned DSGI for respondents drawn our attention, the preliminary submission filed by the respondents as well as additional affidavit that there is no fixed period of deputation and petitioner cannot claim period of seven years as tenure at one place. He was transferred in the public interest as per training requirements. The main transfer order was issued in exigencies of service and public interest and for administrative convenience and further submitted that unless an order of transfer is shown to be in outcome of Mala-fide exercise, the Court normally may not be pleased to interfere with such order as a matter of routine.

9. It is further submitted that training Institute of NDRF Academy has been established to impart training on whole gamut of subjects related to disaster management and is not restricted to the radiological, biological and chemical emergencies only, but also in other courses like forest fire fighting, floods, cyclones, earthquakes and First Aid etc. Even for imparting training radiological, biological and chemical disasters, this officer lacks actual field experience of handling such disasters and a tenure in the battalion would prepare him better for such a role.

10. It is submitted that the petitioner lays his claim to instructorship based on knowledge and experience acquired in the field while remaining in his parent organization i.e. CRPF which is a combat force with core competence in internal security duties, which by nature differs from the role and tasks envisioned for the NDRF. The Force is fulfilling these responsibilities with its rigorous training regime and diligent application of skills on the ground which is being provided by NDRF Academy at Nagpur. The NDRF Academy is envisioned to be a world class Premier Institution which requires instructors who are capable to impart quality and outstanding training to the stakeholders in the field of disaster management. It is due to this very reason that the petitioner has to be trained in various courses related to the disaster management after he reported to the Academy. The decision of sending newly appointed instructors to the NDRF Battalions in the field for experience and exposure to disaster situation in an actual disaster situation or the persons who have served very long back, are not able to properly assess the training needs and have very little or absolutely no exposure to the NDRF operations and the equipment profile, which thereby becomes a handicap in imparting training to the NDRF trainees. As the inexperience of the instructors and other officers in the Academy was telling adversely on training, it was felt that the instructors must have field experience before they can be entrusted with imparting training to the NDRF responders. Therefore, a considered decision was taken to not to post any officer who does not have any field experience of working in the NDRF Battalion directly to the NDRF Academy and officers in the Academy who lack field experience are being sent to the field for experience of and exposure to disaster situation before they become instructors. In pursuance of such a policy, recently posted officers from the CRPF who reported on deputation to the NDRF Academy have also been posted to NDRF Battalions despite the fact that their relieving orders also mentioned that they have been relieved by the CRPF for the NDRF Academy.

11. We have heard both the parties at length. Perused the documents submitted by the parties. The main ground for challenge is firstly, there is no necessity of field training to the petitioner as during his service with the CRPF, petitioner has acquired specialization in radiological, biological and chemical emergencies. He has received several Medals and awards. Secondly, before transferring him on deputation from CRPF to NDRF Academy, his consent was obtained for joining Academy only. Thirdly, respondent No.2 has no authority to transfer the petitioner from the post of Instructor at NDRF Academy, Nagpur to 06 Battalion stationed at Baroda.

12. In our considered opinion, whether the petitioner is in need of field training in NDRF is within the prerogative of NDRF Academy. The reason for such training is duly explained by the respondent and in our considered opinion, there is no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the action on the part of respondents. The Academy is established with the specific purpose to impart training on whole gamut of subjects related to disaster management and is not restricted to the radiological, biological and chemical emergencies only, but also in other courses like forest fire fighting, floods, cyclones, earthquakes and First Aid etc. Even if, the petitioner has acquired specialization in handling radiological, biological and chemical emergencies. The Academy feel it necessary to train the Instructor first with NDRF Battalion. The NDRF is an elite standalone federal force of the country that deals in the field of disaster management. It may be the single largest force of the world dedicated to disaster response which requires high standards of professional competency and devotion. The Force is fulfilling these responsibilities with its rigorous training regime and diligent application of skills on the ground which is being provided by NDRF Academy at Nagpur. Therefore, instructors who are capable to impart quality and outstanding training to the stakeholders in the field of disaster management are required.

13. It appears from the rejoinder filed by the respondents, the rules and the service conditions for the new institution of NDRF Academy is still in the process of being formalized and the decision to transfer, or any other administrative decisions falls in the realm of executive functions for effective management of training and other administrative requirements.

14. In short, it is the contention of the petitioner that, in view of the conditions of service of NDRF Academy, those are applicable to NDRF personnel only. As regards deputed personnel, the respective forces control their service condition. The policy guideline of dated 24/11/2016 also provides that, if the deputation is approved for specific post, then the deputation should not be changed by the borrowing department, which envisaged the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 does not include the NDRF Academy at Nagpur. This position cannot be deviated from nor he can be shifted elsewhere on an imaginary and non-existing ground that, he does not have Field Experience.

15. The petitioner relied on State of Punjab and others (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court explained, what is ‘deputation’, wherein there is no dispute over this proposition of law. In the matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 18 as under:-

“18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. “Deputation” has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word “deputation” is of no help. In simple words “deputation” means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be.” There is no dispute over this proposition of law.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and another (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. When the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance.” In our considered opinion, in the present matter, no such question is involved.

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court differentiated “the Appointment on deputation” and “Transfer on deputation.” In the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court, cancellation of apportionment on ground that deputation from higher post to lower post was impermissible. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, “ordinarily transfers on deputations are made against equivalent post in which case deputationist neither has any legal right to deputed post, nor right to be absorbed in deputed post since deputation does not result in recruitment and incumbent continues to be member of parent service. On the other hand, candidate who applies for appointment on deputation in State services has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally and once such person is selected and offered with letter of appointment, same cannot be cancelled except on ground of non-suitability or unsatisfactory work”.

18. The facts involved in the matter of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) before the Hon‘ble Apex Court are distinguishable as the petitioner was appointed on deputation. The offer of appointment was issued in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex held that, “in such circumstances, it was not open for the respondent to argue that the appellant has no right to claim deputation and the respondent cannot refuse to accept the joining of most eligible selected candidate except on ground of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance.” In the present matter, there is no such cancellation of appointment order. For the reasons stated in forgoing paras, the petitioner was directed to join battalion 6 for training purpose. There is no change in the department. There are other officials also who were directed to join different battalions coming under the respondent no. 2. The Academy is one of the institutions run by respondent no. 2. As such, there is neither any cancellation of deputation nor it is further deputation by respondent no. 2. It is also not the case of petitioner that order passed is malafide.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on Sarita Singh (supra) in support of his contention that, there can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. In the present matter, while deputing the petitioner to the Academy of National Disaster Response Force, his consent was obtained. So far as the order which was directed him to join Battalion 6 of NDRF Academy is merely with an intention to sharpen the skills of the petitioner as well as to make him update in all concerned field, which is come under all kinds of emergencies disasters. It cannot be said to be deputation from Academy to Battalion. As we have held that, true it is that the petitioner claims instructorship based on knowledge and experience acquired in the field while remaining in his parent organization i.e. CRPF which is a combat force with core competence in internal security duties, which by nature differs from the role and tasks envisioned for the NDRF. The NDRF deals in field of disaster management. So if the respondent no. 2 feels it necessary to send the petitioner for such additional training, it is no way prejudicial for the petitioner. It is for the betterment, the petitioner is not the only person in the Academy who were sent for such training, other personnel are also directed to join Battalion.

20. In view of the provision of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, “The general superintendence, direction and control of the Force shall be vested and exercised by the National Authority and the command and supervision of the Force shall vest in an officer to be appointed by the Central Government as the Director General of the National Disaster Response Force.” Thus, the Act places full authority of command and supervision in the DG, NDRF. As such, considering the facts and circumstances, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the order passed by the respondent no. 2. The impugned order is well within the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2. As such, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. An interim order passed on 15/03/2023 stands vacated. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.