ORDER
R.K. Upadhyaya, Member (A)
1. This application is made against the order dated 9/14.3.2000 (Annexure-A-1) by which it has been communicated to the applicant that “the proposal for permanent absorption of Deputy Registrars in CAT has been dropped due to the notification of amended Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Registrar w.e.f. 23.2.2000”. The applicant has also assailed the order dated 8.5.2002 (Annexure-A-2) in which it has been communicated that the applicant is repatriated to his parent department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Housing and Environment, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh with effect from 8.7.2002 (AN) on completion of present tenure (Fifth year) of deputation.
2. It is stated by the applicant that he joined service in Madhya Pradesh Government on 6.9.1982 and while he was posted as Estate Officer in Dewas Development Authority, he applied for transfer on deputation to the post of Deputy Registrar in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The applicant, on being selected on deputation, joined as Deputy Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur on 9.7.1997. His deputation was initially for one year but the same was extended finally for fifth year up to 8.7.2002 as per order dated 31.7.2001 (Annexure-A-4) at the request of the applicant.
2.1 It is further claimed by the applicant that on 30.8.1999, the applicant sought permission of his parent department for permanent absorption in Central Administrative Tribunal and on receipt of the no objection certificate, he applied for grant of permanent absorption in Central Administrative Tribunal as per his letter dated 16.9.1999 addressed to the Hon’ble Vice Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench which was forwarded to the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi as per letter dated 21.9.1999 (Annexure-A-7). It is claimed by the applicant that on receipt of all relevant papers, “a departmental appointment committee/Departmental Promotion Committee approved the absorption of the applicant in the Central Administrative Tribunal as Dy. Registar in October, 1999”. The applicant further claims that in spite of repeated reminders, the formal appointment letter was not issued to him. On the other hand, he received the impugned letter dated 9/14.3.2000 (Annexure-A-1) which informed that “the proposal for permanent absorption of Deputy Registrars in CAT had been dropped due to the notification of amended Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Registrar w.e.f. 23.2.2000”.
2.2 The grounds raised by the applicant is that “after approval of the applicant by D.P.C., there was no justification in not issuing the letter of absorption”, and the recruitment rules which came into effect from 23.2.2000 have no effect retrospectively. He further alleged that “it will have effect only with particular date and matters which stand concluded, except for formal letter of appointment, could not be rejected on the basis of the new Recruitment Rule”.
2.3 On these facts the applicant has asked for following reliefs;-
"(a) quash the orders passed by Dy. Registrar (E) CAT, New Delhi vide No. PB/ 17/14/99-Estt. I/2884/A dt. 9/14-3-2000 (Annexure-A-1) and Office order issued by Principal Registrar, CAT, New Delhi No. PB/l/18/2001-Estt. I/ 3987/A dt. 8th May, 2002 Annexure-A/2 and further be pleased to issue an appropriate order for absorbing the Petitioner as Dy. Registrar, CAT, in the light of the fact that his case has been approved; (b) grant such other appropriate relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case". 3. At the time of admission of the application, the learned Counsel of the applicant stated that the reliefs claimed by the applicant may be granted on the basis of material contained in the application as he had nothing further to add. 4. We have carefully gone through the application of the applicant and perused the material made available on record as filed by the applicant. In our opinion, the facts of this case do not justify any interference by this Tribunal on account of the following reasons:-
4.1 The main challenge of the applicant is against letter dated 9/14.3.2000 (Annexure-A-1) by which the applicant was informed that the proposal for permanent absorption of Deputy Registrars in CAT had been dropped due to Notification of amended Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Registrar with effect from 23.2.2000. There is nothing on record lo show that the applicant had challenged this order dated 9/14.3.2000 (Annexure-A-1) either by filing a representation or in any judicial forum. Therefore, the challenge now made in this O.A. filed on 24.6.2002 is not within limitation and is highly belated and suffers from the vice of delay and laches as per the provisions contained in Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which provides that any challenge could have been made within one year from the date of receipt of the impugned order. As observed earlier, the present O.A. filed on 24.6.2002 is not within limitation and the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
4.2 In para 6 of this O.A., the applicant has stated that he has exhausted all the remedies available to him in the department. But, in view of the fact that he has not represented against the impugned order (Annexure-A-1) or even against the order dated 8.5.2002 (Annexure-A-2), the statement of the applicant is factually incorrect. The applicant has not made any representation against the impugned orders dated 9/14.3.2000 (Annexure-A-1) and 8.5.2001 (Annexure-A-2) to any authorities for redressing the grievance of the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has exhausted other remedies available to him, before coming to the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the O.A. deserves to be rejected under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
4.3 The applicant has asserted that a departmental appointment committee/departmental promotion committee has approved the absorption of the applicant in October, 1999 but no evidence to that effect has been placed for our consideration. Mere averment without corroboration cannot be accepted. If it was so, he should have immediately taken up his claim on receipt of the letter dated 9/14.3.2000 (Annexure-A-1), which informed the applicant that proposal for permanent absorption of Deputy Registrars in CAT had been dropped. In view of absence of any evidence to show that the applicant’s name was approved for absorption in CAT, this claim cannot be considered. However, without prejudice to the above position, it may be noticed that the respondents were justified in ignoring such selection (if it was at all there) in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Singh Dalai and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1993 SCC (L&S) 846 where it has been stated that “the law is settled that even candidates selected for appointment have no right to appointment and it is open to the State Government at a subsequent date not to fill up the posts or to resort to fresh selection and appointment on revised criteria”.
4.4 The request of the applicant for quashing the order dated 8.5.2002 (Annexure-A-2) regarding repatriation with effect from 8.7.2002 (AN) is also not justified. As per the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, O.M. No. 2/29/91-Estt. (Pay. II), dated the 5th January, 1994 reproduced in Chapter 49 of Swamy’s Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration, Sixth Edition-1997) the period of deputation shall be subject to a maximum of three years in all cases except for those posts where a longer period of tenure is prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. It further provides that the Administrative Ministry/borrowing organisation may grant extension beyond this limit up to one year and may extend the period of deputation for the fifth year. It also provides that where extension beyond fifth year is required, the same may be allowed only after obtaining the approval of the Department of Personnel & Training at least three months before the expiry of the extended tenure. In the present case, there is no such request for extension beyond five years and no approval of the Department of Personnel & Training has been obtained. Therefore, the question of any further retention of the applicant on deputation beyond 8.7.2002 (AN) does not arise. In this connection, the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cas-, of Kunal Nanda v. Union of India, 2000 SCC (L&S) 705-2000(3) SLJ 336 (SC), may be noted. In this decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated as follows :
“6 The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed to which he had gone on deputation”.
4.5 The applicant has raised a ground that the impugned order dated 9/14.3.2000 (Annexure-A-1) was not justified as he was allegedly absorbed in October, 1999 when the new rules were not in existence. It may be observed that even as per the old rules, i.e., Central Administrative Tribunal (Group ‘A’ Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988, he was not qualified to be appointed as Deputy Registrar even in October, 1999. The said rules of 1988 provide that the post of Deputy Registrar may be filled up to the extent of 50% by promotion and 50% by transfer on deputation. There was no provision for filling up the post of Deputy Registrar on absorption basis. Apparently, the claim of the applicant is without any basis and his absorption could not have been made against the provisions of the Recruitment Rules.
5. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraph, this O.A. being devoid of any merit is rejected at the admission stage itself.