High Court · 2004

Heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned counsel for the appellant, and Ms. R Sharm a, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The appellant joined, on 16-05-2001, the North Eastern Regional Institut e of Water and Land Management (hereinafter referred to as ’NERIWALM’), as a Fie ld Assistant, in regular and substantive capacity. Pursuant to an advertisement, which was published, on 01-03-2004, by NERIWALM, inviting applications for the post, inter alia, of Senior Field Assistant with conditions of eligibility as na rrated therein, the appellant applied for appointment to the post of Senior Fiel d Assistant. Thereafter, an offer was given by NERIWALM by their letter, dated23 -06-2004, and pursuant to the said offer of appointment, the petitioner accepted the offer and joined the said post of Senior Field Assistant. The letter, dated 23-06-2004, read as under: (cid:28)Ref:- Appointment in the post of Senior Field Assistant - on internal deputatio n at NERIWALM. Sir, With reference to your application for the post of Senior Field Assistan t and based on the interview performance held on 15th June 2004, I am directed t o inform that you are selected for the post of Senior Field Assistant at NERIWAL M on internal deputation basis under normal rules of deputation of Govt. of Indi a for period of 2 years extendable only up to 31st March, 2007 and subjected to the following condition. For the post of Senior Field Assistant is in the pay sc ale of Rs. 5000-150-8000/- with DA as per Govt. of India rules. You are requeste d to convey your acceptance of this offer by returning acceptance of this letter duly signed and stamped it as to reach the undersigned latest by 5th July 2004 in the event of non-receipt of your acceptance on or before 5th July, 2004, it w ill be presumed that you are not interested in this offer and this appointment o f will be made to the next candidate in the panel. (cid:29) (Emphasis is added). From a bare reading of the contents of the letter, dated 23-06-2004, aforementio ned, what clearly transpires is that the appellant was informed that he stood se lected for the post of Senior Field Assistant on ’internal deputation basis’ and that he would be put, ’on deputation’, for a period of two years, which would b e extendable up to 31-03-2007. The appellant accepted the offer of appointment s o made and joined accordingly. While working in the said post of Senior Field As sistant, the appellant applied, on 23-06-2004, to the authorities concerned to a llow him to work in a substantive post of Field Assistant. The appellant was, th erefore, repatriated by order, dated 03-04-2008, to the post of Field Assistant, with effect from 01-04-2008. When the Managing Council of NERIWALM, in its meet ing held on 22-10-2008, decided to fill up 18 posts, on regular basis, by incumb ents thereof, who had been earlier appointed, on contract basis, the appellant, feeling aggrieved by the fact that the post of Senior Field Assistant, which he was, at one point of time, holding, had not been included in the post, whose inc umbents were being regularized, filed a writ petition, under Article 226, seekin g to get set aside and quashed the resolution adopted by the Managing Council in its meeting held on 22-10-2008. This writ petition gave rise to WP(C) No. 733 o f 2009. The respondents resisted the writ petition by contending, inter alia, th at since the appellant’s appointment was, on deputation, as Senior Field Assista nt and it was on the request made by the appellant himself that he came to be su bsequently repatriated to the post of Field Assistant in substantive capacity, i t was not open to the appellant to contend that he shall be absorbed in, or be t reated as permanent appointee of, the post of Senior Field Assistant. Having examined the respective cases of the parties concerned and the ma terials on record, learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment and order, d ated 24-08-2009, has dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant is, now, before us. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted by Mr. A Das gupta, learned counsel, that the post of Senior Field Assistant, which was adver tised, on 01-03-2004, pursuant whereto, the appellant had applied, was not meant to be field up on deputation or on contractual basis and, hence, the appellant ought to have been treated as a permanent employee in the post of Senior Field A ssistant. This aspect of the matter, we find, has been clearly taken note of by the learned Single Judge. We also notice that though the advertisement, dated 01 -03-2004, had clearly specified as to whether an applicant from NERIWALM would o r would not be appointed permanently to the advertised post of Senior Field Assi stant, the offer of appoint, given by the letter, dated 23-06-2004, aforemention ed, to the appellant, clearly informed the appellant that NERIWALM had proposed to appoint the appellant, on ’internal deputation’, in the post of Senior Field Assistant. Without any demure, objection, protest or resistance, the appellant j oined the post of Senior Field Assistant and, as noted by the learned Single Jud ge, apprehending that the post of Senior Field Assistant, which the appellant wa s, so holding ’on deputation’, might not be regularized, the appellant opted, on his own volition, to work in the post of Field Assistant, which was the appella nt’s substantive appointment and having been repatriated to the post of Field As sistant, the appellant has continued to function as the Field Assistant. This ap art, there is also no dispute that the Management Council of NERIWALM has the po wer to create or abolish or not to fill up a post. In the circumstances, we do n ot find that the appellant had been able to make out any case warranting this Co urt’s interference in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 2 26. In fact, having taken into account all aspects of the respective cases, which the parties had pleaded and placed before the Court, the writ petition has been decided. We do not find any infirmity, legal or factual, in the findings r eached by the learned Senior Judge. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. In view of the above, the appeal is not admitted and the same shall acco rdingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.