Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 723 (MP)

Jai Prakash Keswani v. State of M. P.

2005-07-15

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
ORDER 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2000 (Annexure P-18) whereby respondent No.4 has been absorbed on the post of Additional Commissioner in the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, (in short "the Corporation"), the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. In brief the case of petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Hindi Stenographer temporarily vide order dated 18.9.1971 by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. In accordance with the Standing Order No. 1(8)/1980, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, effected an alteration in the name of post by altering it to Assistant Commissioner and PA to Commissioner. Copy of said Standing Order dated 14.3.1980 has been placed on record as Annexure P-10. Thereafter, the said alteration was cancelled on 15.3.1980 and again restored vide Standing Order No. 26/91, Annexure P-11 and P-12 respectively. Thereafter, as per the case of petitioner, the Corporation, vide Standing Order No. 3(1)/92, further altered the name of post of Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure P-13. Accordingly, the seniority list of Assistant Commissioners came to' be published wherein name of the petitioner is reflected at Serial No.1 (Annexure P-14). Thereafter, Corporation, after obtaining necessary approval from the State Government, promoted the petitioner to the post of Deputy Commissioner and in the order it was mentioned that the seniority of the petitioner on the said post would be at Serial No.1 A copy of the order dated 16.3.2000 has been placed on record as Annexure P-15. 3. According to the averments made in the petition, Standing Order No. 39 (1976) (Annexure P-16) details out that in absence of service rules, the service conditions of the officers would be governed by the Standing Orders and the Standing Order 16(1)/1991 (Annexure P-17) deals about " the promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner which is required to be filled up from the incumbents who are functioning as PA/Assistant Commissioner, respectively, and the promotion would be made on the basis of seniority of the incumbent on the post of Assistant Commissioner. 4. According to the petitioner, since he is senior most, so far as post of Assistant Commissioner is concerned, as also to the post of Deputy Commissioner as reflected vide Annexure P-15, he is entitled for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner since feeder cadre is Deputy Commissioner. 4. According to the petitioner, since he is senior most, so far as post of Assistant Commissioner is concerned, as also to the post of Deputy Commissioner as reflected vide Annexure P-15, he is entitled for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner since feeder cadre is Deputy Commissioner. In this regard, standing order l6(1)/1991 dated 1.6.1991 has been filed as Annexure P -17. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has been absorbed on the post of Additional Commissioner and his absorption on the said post is de hors the amended section 58(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and also under sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 58 of the Act. The submission of Mrs. Menon, learned Senior Advocate, is that under sub-section (1) of S. 58 of the Act, since admittedly respondent No. 4 is not an employee of the Corporation and is an employee of the State Government, who has been sent on deputation, he cannot be absorbed on the post of Additional Commissioner because absorption is neither provided under the Act nor under the Byelaws made thereunder in order to absorb a deputationist and, therefore, entire action of respondents 1 to 3 in absorbing respondent No.4 on the post of Additional Commissioner is not only illegal, improper and mala fide, but is also arbitrary and in utter violation of the provisions of law. On these premised submissions, the contention of learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner is that the impugned order dated 15.12.2000 (Annexure P- 18) by which respondent No.4 has been absorbed on the post of Additional Commissioner, be quashed. In support of her contention, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on C. Muniyappa Naidu v. State of Karnataka and others [ AIR 1976 SC 2377 ] and Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Nagar Nigam Karmachari Congress and another v. State of M.P. and another [ 1998(1) JLJ 326 = 1998 (1) MPLJ 449 ]. 6. The stand of the State Government-respondent No.1 is that before' absorbing respondent No.4 on the post of Additional Commissioner, an approval was obtained from the State Government which was accorded on 25.10.2000 and accordingly the Corporation rightly absorbed respondent No.4 on the post of Additional Commissioner vide impugned order dated 15.12.2000 (P-18). 6. The stand of the State Government-respondent No.1 is that before' absorbing respondent No.4 on the post of Additional Commissioner, an approval was obtained from the State Government which was accorded on 25.10.2000 and accordingly the Corporation rightly absorbed respondent No.4 on the post of Additional Commissioner vide impugned order dated 15.12.2000 (P-18). It has been fm1herpropounded in the return of the State Government that sub-section (1) of S. 58 of the Act provides that subject to the rules made by the State Government in respect of set-up, strength, recruitment, appointment, pay scales, allowances and other conditions of service of officers and servants of the Corporation, the Corporation shall appoint officers and servants as may be necessary for efficient performance of the functions of the Corporation, and therefore, under sub-section (1), the power to make appointment on cel1ain posts vests in Mayor-in-Council whereas for appointment on remaining posts, power vests without Commissioner of the Corporation. The old section 58 was totally amended and substituted by Amendment Act 12/95 which came into force on 1.5.1995. As per the return of the State Government, by virtue of provisions contained in section 58 of the Act, the State Government has framed rules for regulating the appointment and conditions of services of officers and servants of Municipal Corporation and they are known as "M.P. Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Services of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). These rules were published in M.P. Rajpatra Extraordinary dated 9.2.2001 and thus came in effect from this date from 1995, i.e., the date on which section 58 was substituted, till 9.2.2001 there were no rules governing appointment and conditions of services of officers and servants. According to Schedule-I of the Rules, post of Additional Commissioner is required to be filled up 100% by deputation and it cannot be filled by promotion from the feeder post of Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner. 7. It has been set forth in the return that respondent No.4 was posted as Additional Commissioner in Corporation vide order dated 26.9.1997. Earlier also he was posted as Deputy Commissioner in the Corporation in the year 1994. The Corporation by taking into consideration his method of work and performance, decided to absorb his services to the post of Additional Commissioner and such power vests in the Mayor-in-Council under section 58 of the Act. Earlier also he was posted as Deputy Commissioner in the Corporation in the year 1994. The Corporation by taking into consideration his method of work and performance, decided to absorb his services to the post of Additional Commissioner and such power vests in the Mayor-in-Council under section 58 of the Act. Accordingly, Mayor-in-Council of the Corporation passed a resolution on 16.10.1999 and took a decision to absorb the services of respondent No.4 as Additional Commissioner. It has also been submitted that under section 58(3) the respondent No.4 was posted as Additional Commissioner by the State Government and not under section 58(5) of the Act, as has been said by the petitioner. On the basis of these averments, it has been prayed that writ petition be dismissed. 8. In the return filed by respondents No.2 and 3, i.e., Mayor-in-Council and Municipal Corporation, Bhopal it is stated that respondent No.4 has been working on the post of Additional Commissioner since 1997 and is discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of respondents No.1 to 3. The absorption of respondent No.4 on the post of Additional Commissioner was made and order was issued on approval of the State Government and in compliance to its direction dated 25.10.2000, as is evident from the impugned order dated 15.12.2000 (P-18), the impugned order was issued. The respondent No.4 had initially worked as Deputy Commissioner in the Corporation from 29.9.1994 to 23.12.1994 and therefore he was posted as Additional Commissioner in the Corporation on 25.9.1997. Under the stopgap arrangement, respondent No. 4 has also served on the post of Commissioner. Since respondent No.3 was in need of the service of Additional Commissioner on permanent establishment respondent No.2 , resolved under section 58 of the Act to take services of respondent No.4 , finally and accordingly respondent No.1 by accepting proposal of respondent No.2 (Mayor-in-Council) vide its order dated 25.10.2000, approved the absorption of respondent No.4 pursuant to the said resolution of Mayor-in-Council and thereafter impugned order dated 18.12.2000 (P18) has been rightly issued by the Corporation. 9. Looking to the merit, compentency, experience and service record of respondent No.4, he has been absorbed on the post of Additional Commissioner for the benefit of the Corporation. In para 4 (sub-para i to xiv) respondent No.2 and 3 have demonstrated the meritorious activity, experience and competency of the respondent No.4. 10. 9. Looking to the merit, compentency, experience and service record of respondent No.4, he has been absorbed on the post of Additional Commissioner for the benefit of the Corporation. In para 4 (sub-para i to xiv) respondent No.2 and 3 have demonstrated the meritorious activity, experience and competency of the respondent No.4. 10. The stand of respondents No.2 and 3 is also that under section 58(1) of the Act, the absorption of the petitioner has been rightly made and there is no express bar to absorb the services to the post of Additional Commissioner. Since it was resolved by the Mayor-in-Council to absorb services of respondent No.4 to the post of Additional Commissioner and the same was approved by the State Government, therefore, the impugned order (P-18) cannot be said to be an illegal order. 11. It has been argued by Shri Ajay Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, that apart from merit, present petition is also not maintainable since petitioner is not having any locus standi to file present writ petition. The attention of this Court has been drawn to Annexure R-1-7 which is Standing Order of the Corporation showing eligibility criteria. According to the Standing Order Annexure R-3-7 dated 1.11.1990, first promotion shall be given to those employees who had served for 8 years and second promotion shall be given 5 years thereafter and further next promotion would be given again after completing service conditions mentioned in the said Standing Order. It has been vehemently argued by Shri Mishra, learned senior counsel, that since petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Commissioner on 16.3.2000 (Annexure P-15), therefore, he would be completing his 5 years' service experience as Deputy Commissioner on 26.5.2004 and then only he would be eligible for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner. Since this writ petition was filed on 3.4.2001 and on this date petitioner had not completed requisite 5 years' qualifying service, therefore, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner and now the Rules have come into force w.e.f. 9.2.2001 specifying the mode of recruitment to fill the post of Additional Commissioner, which according to the Rules is 100% by deputation. Therefore w.e.f. 9.2.2001, when the Rules came into force, erstwhile channel of promotion from the post of Deputy Commissioner to Additional Commissioner has been abolished. Therefore w.e.f. 9.2.2001, when the Rules came into force, erstwhile channel of promotion from the post of Deputy Commissioner to Additional Commissioner has been abolished. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the cases of State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal [ AIR 1952 SC 12 ], Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [ AIR 1962 SC 1044 ], State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash Kapur [ AIR 1963 SC 507 ] and State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra [ AIR 1964 SC 685 ]. 12. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, by adopting the stand taken by respondents No.1 to 3 and by inviting attention of this Court to the return filed by respondent No.4, has submitted that under the Act there is no bar that an officer taken on deputation for the efficient performance of the functions of the Corporation on the ground of necessity, cannot be subsequently absorbed in the public interest. Since petitioner has failed to demonstrate such a bar against such absorption, under the service law there is clear provision of absorption of the officer who has been taken on deputation with the consent of parent employer and in the present case the State Government, admittedly, had accorded its consent on 25.10.2000 which also reflects in the impugned order (P-18). According to Shri Sanjay Agrawal, since Rules came into force from 9.2.2001, services of deputationist could be absorbed since there is no bar and, therefore, no illegality has been committed either by the State Government or Municipal Corporation by absorbing his services to the post of Additional Commissioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Ravi Paul and others v. Union of India and other [ (1995) 3 SCC 300 ] and AIR 1966 SC 1942 . In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Ravi Paul and others v. Union of India and other [ (1995) 3 SCC 300 ] and AIR 1966 SC 1942 . Learned counsel, by placing reliance on Food Corporation of India v. FCI Deputationist Association and others [ (1996) 6 SCC 90 ], Rameshwar Prasad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and others [ (1999) 8 SCC 381 ], T. Shantharam v. State of Karnataka [ AIR 1995 SC 1123 ] and Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar and another [ (1999) 4 SCC 659 ] has submitted that in the appropriate cases, the Supreme Court approved the action of the employer absorbing the services of a deputationist and if that is the position, according to the learned counsel, action of respondents No. 1 to 3 by absorbing his services on the post of Additional Commissioner cannot be said to be de hors to section 58(1) or sub-sections (5) and (6) of S. 58 of the Act. On these grounds it has been submitted and prayed by respondent No.4 that this petition be dismissed. 13. In reply Mrs. Menon, learned senior counsel, by inviting my attention to the rejoinder has submitted that section 58 of the Act is subject to the Rules made by the State Government. Admittedly, when respondent No.4 was absorbed as Additional Commissioner, the Rules were not made and enforced by the State Government and, therefore, the Standing Order 16(1)/91 (P-17) was prevailing and according, to which, post of Additional Commissioner was required to be filled by promoting Deputy Commissioner on seniority basis. According to her, since admittedly petitioner is seniormost Deputy Commissioner, he should have been promoted to the post of Additional Commissioner. It has also been canvassed by Mrs. Menon, learned senior counsel that Standing Order dated 1.11.1990 (Annex. R-3-7) which is being placed reliance by respondents 2 and 3, did not remain in existence after coming into force of Standing Order 16(1)/91 (Annex. P-17) since it is later one and is dated 1.6.1991 and, therefore, Standing Order (Annex.P-17) would prevail and in this Standing Order there is no criterion of completing any qualifying service and the promotion is to be accorded simply on the basis of seniority. 14. P-17) since it is later one and is dated 1.6.1991 and, therefore, Standing Order (Annex.P-17) would prevail and in this Standing Order there is no criterion of completing any qualifying service and the promotion is to be accorded simply on the basis of seniority. 14. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. If we see amended section 58 of the Act in its entirety, it would reveal that it contains a complete scheme of recruitment and appointment of employees in the Corporation in the following manner: (i) Sub-section (1) clearly prescribes that subject to rules made by the State Government, the Corporation shall appoint such officers and servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Corporation; (ii) Clauses (i) to (iii) to sub-section (l) envisage authority of various functionaries/body of Corporation regarding jurisdiction to appoint officers/servants in regard to pay scales and distribution of powers so provided to Mayor-in-Council which would be highest appointing authority for the officers/servants of the Corporation; (iii) Sub-section (2) provides power of ad hoc appointment in emergent situation even in contravention of provisions contained in sub-section (1); (iv) The power conferred under sub-section (2) is subject to certain limitation specified therein; (v) Sub-section (3) empowers the State Government to depute any of its servants to any post under the Corporation; (vi) Sub-section (4) empowers the State Government to fix terms and conditions of any such posting made on deputation; and (vii) Sub-sections (5) and (6) deal with authority of State Government regarding transfer of any employee from one Corporation to another Corporation. Thus, entire scheme of recruitment as envisaged in this section clearly reveals that this section is nothing but an enabling provision which gives complete power authorising Corporation to make appointment of any, employee as per its requirement subject to conditions laid down in the section itself. In absence of any rules framed by the State Government under the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 58, the Corporation can make appointment as per its requirement by following any recognized mode of appointment that may be by way of direct recruitment, by way of promotion, by way of transfer on deputation and by way of absorption of services, as in the present case. There was no law when the impugned order (Annex.P-18) was issued, prohibiting a deputationist to be absorbed on the post of Additional Commissioner of the Corporation. The view of this Court is that in absence of any rules or mode of selection under the Act, the employer' can fill up any existing vacancy by any mode of appointment recognised by service law. In this context, I may profitably rely the decision of Ravi Paul (supra). 16. The entire case hinges on interpretation of sub-sections (1), (5) and (6) of section 58 of the Act and whether in absence of any rules, action of respondents No.1 to 3 absorbing the services of respondent No.4 on the post of Additional Commissioner is a valid action or not. Admittedly, section 58 of the Act has been substituted by Act 12/95 w.e.f. 1.5.1995 and admittedly Rules of 2000 came into force w.e.f. 9.2.2001. Thus, in between this period there were no rules, and when there were no rules, the Standing Orders were prevailing in the Corporation. Amended section 58 of the Act reads thus: "58. Appointment and condition of service of Corporation officers and servants -- (l) Subject to the rules made by the State Government in respect of the set-up, strength, recruitment, appointment, pay scales, allowances and other conditions of service of officers and servants of the Corporation, the Corporation shall appoint such officers and servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Corporation: Provided that - (i) the power of appointing any person on a municipal post which carries a maximum scale of pay as the State Government may from time to time, by an order in writing, specify shall vest in the Mayor-in-Council of the Commissioner; (ii) any appointment made within his power by the Commissioner shall be reported for information to the Mayor-in-Council; (iii) every appointment to be made by the Mayor-in-Council shall be subject to the prior confirmation of the State Government. The decision of the State Government in this behalf shall be final. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in emergent situations. the Mayor-in-Council may make ad hoc appointments for a period not exceeding six months, with prior permission of the State Government. The decision of the State Government in this behalf shall be final. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in emergent situations. the Mayor-in-Council may make ad hoc appointments for a period not exceeding six months, with prior permission of the State Government. (3) The State Government may depute to any post under the Corporation carrying maximum scale of pay as the State Government may from time to time, by an order in writing, specify such servants of the State Government as it may consider necessary. (4) The terms and conditions of deputation of servants of the State Government, including disciplinary control, shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any rules or byelaws made thereunder, the State Government may, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (6), transfer on deputation any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation to any other Municipal Corporation and it shall not be necessary for the State Government to consult either the Corporation or the officer or servant concerned before passing an order of transfer on deputation under this sub-section. (6) The officer or servant transferred under sub-section (5) shall-(a) have his lien on the post held in the parent Corporation; (b) not be put to disadvantageous position in respect of pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to had he continued in the parent Corporation; (c) be entitled to deputation allowances at such rate as the State Government may by general order specify; and (d) be governed by such other terms and conditions; including disciplinary control, as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify." On bare perusal of this section it is revealed that Corporation is empowered to appoint such officers and servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Corporation. Since the Rules were not there when the impugned order (P-18) dated 15.12.2000 was issued by the Corporation absorbing the services of respondent No.4 in compliance to the sanction accorded by the State Government, dated 25.10.2000, therefore, since there was no bar, it cannot be said that the services of respondent No.4, who was a deputationist in the Corporation, could not have been absorbed. Before enforcement of the Rules of 2000, there was absolutely no bar. The position would have been different if the Rules of 2000 would have been there. Before enforcement of the Rules of 2000, there was absolutely no bar. The position would have been different if the Rules of 2000 would have been there. In that situation, the impugned order (P-18) could not have been passed. But, since on the date when impugned order (P-18) was issued, Rules were not there, it cannot be said that the absorption of respondent No.4 on the post of Additional Commissioner is de hors to sub-section (1) or sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 58 of the Act. The matter pertaining to appointment in the service of the Corporation amongst servants of the Corporation would be only after enforcement of the Rules of 2000. Since there was a long gap in between 1.5.1995 (when section 58 was amended) and 9.2.2001 (when Rules of 2000 came into force), there was absolutely no bar to absorb services of respondent No.4 in the Corporation. Admitted, there is a resolution of Mayor-in-Council to absorb the services of respondent No.4 on the post of Additional Commissioner and admittedly appointment was made by obtaining prior approval of the State Government and, therefore, judging from any angle, absorption of respondent No.4 to the post of Additional Commissioner cannot be said to be in violation to section 58(1) or sub-sections (5) and (6) of S.58 of the Act. Thus decision of C. Muniyappa Naidu (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner has no applicability in the present factual scenario. The Full Bench decision of this Court Indore Nagar Nigam Karmachari Congress (supra) is also not applicable in these facts and circumstances because that case has nothing to do with the absorption of deputationist. 17. The view of this Court is that in between 1.5.1995 (when section 58 was amended) and 9.2.2001 (when Rules of 2000 came into force) Standing Orders were prevailing. The contention of Mrs. Menon, learned senior counsel, is that Standing Order No. 16(1)/91 dated 1.6.1991 (P-17) being a later one, would prevail and accordingly the promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner is to be accorded from the feeder cadre of Deputy Commissioner and since petitioner is the senior-most Deputy Commissioner, he should be given promotion. This argument at the first blush though appears to be quite attractive, but on deeper scrutiny the same is found to be devoid of any substance. This argument at the first blush though appears to be quite attractive, but on deeper scrutiny the same is found to be devoid of any substance. It be seen that the Standing Order 16(1)/91 was not repealed or superseded completely. Earlier, Standing Order No. 35(1)/1990 (Annexure R-3-7) which was in continuation to Standing Order No. 26/1970-72, has been simply amended by the said Standing Order as is crystal clear on bare perusal of this Standing Order (Annexure P-17) in which it has been specifically mentioned that Standing Order 26/ 1970-72 is being amended. There is no substance in the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that after coming into, force of Annex. P-17, earlier Standing Order 35 (1)/1990 (Annexure R-37) has been superseded and, therefore, in order to promote the petitioner to the post of Additional Commissioner, no qualifying service of 5 years is necessary. On bare perusal of Standing Order 35(1)/1990 which is in continuation of Standing Order 26/1970-72 (Annexure R-3-7), it is revealed that the first promotion to the employee of Corporation is to be accorded after completing 8 years of his service and second promotion after completing minimum service of 5 years and thereafter next promotion is to be accorded again after having completed 5 years' minimum service. This Standing Order has been only amended by Annexure P-17, according to which the promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner is to be accorded from the feeder post of Deputy Commissioner. If these two Standing Orders are kept in juxtaposition and read conjointly, it would reveal that Standing Order 16(1)/91 (P-17) is nothing but demonstrating the channel of promotion and in the Standing Order 35(1)/90 which has been issued in continuation to Standing Order 26/1970-72, minimum qualification for promotion has been shown. Thus, the view of this Court is that both the Standing Orders are applicable. Merely because an employee has completed requisite years of service as envisaged in Annexure R-3-7, it would not mean that he may be promoted. The promotion is to be accorded in terms of Annexure P-17 on the basis of seniority. Nowhere, in Annexure P-17 it has been mentioned that minimum years of qualifying service are not needed. Merely because an employee has completed requisite years of service as envisaged in Annexure R-3-7, it would not mean that he may be promoted. The promotion is to be accorded in terms of Annexure P-17 on the basis of seniority. Nowhere, in Annexure P-17 it has been mentioned that minimum years of qualifying service are not needed. Since the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner w.e.f. 26.5.1999 vide order dated 16th March, 2000 (Annexure P-15), he could be promoted on the post of Additional Commissioner not before 26.5.2004 and on this date, Rules of 2000 came into force and according to which post of Additional Commissioner is to be recruited 100% by deputation according to Schedule-I. 18. Since the petitioner was not eligible for promotion on the date when urged order dated 15.12.2000 (P-18) was issued absorbing the services of respondent No.4, therefore, the petitioner was not having any locus standi to file this petition on 3.4.2001 and for this reason petition is also found to be not maintainable. 19. It be seen that issuing of writs or directions by the High Court is founded only on its decision that a right of the aggrieved party under Part III of the Constitution, i.e., fundamental right has been infringed. It can also be issued for any other purpose. Therefore, the existence of the right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this context, I may profitably rely the decision of the apex Court in the case of Madan Gopal Rungta (supra). It would be profitable to rely the decision of the apex Court in the cases of Calcutta Gas Company (supra) in this context and also Suraj Prakash Kapur (supra). 20. The appointment through deputation and subsequently absorption is germane under the service jurisprudence. In this context, it would be condign to rely the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Anand Prakash Solanki [2003 AIR SCW 4418] wherein, in para 7, the apex Court has held as under: "7. ..... The concept of appointment by transfer is not unknown to service jurisprudence. In this context, it would be condign to rely the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Anand Prakash Solanki [2003 AIR SCW 4418] wherein, in para 7, the apex Court has held as under: "7. ..... The concept of appointment by transfer is not unknown to service jurisprudence. A power to appoint includes a power to revoke an appointment, and so also a power to make an appointment includes a power to make an appointment by transfer subject to satisfying the requirements of section 10 of the Act. The expression 'appointment' takes in appointment by direct recruitment, appointment by promotion and appointment by transfer [See Indra Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others [1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217], para 827, per Jeevan Reddy. J.. In K. Narayanan and others v. State of Karanataka and others [1994 Supp. (1) SCC 44], the term 'recruitment' came up for the consideration of this Court and it was held that it is a comprehensive term which includes any method provided for inducting a person in public service such as appointment, selection, promotion and deputation which are all well known methods of recruitment and even appointment by transfer is not unknown. In Union of India v. A. R. Shinde and another [ (1987) 2 SCC 1 ], this Court noticed three modes of making recruitment, i.e., promotion, deputation and direct recruitment and at the same time held that an appointment by transfer too was unexceptionable." 21. In the cases of Rameshwar Prasad (supra), T. Shantharam (supra) and Umapati Choudhary (supra) the apex Court held the action of employer absorbing services of the deputationist to be valid. 22. The impugned order dated 15.12.2000 (Annex. P-18) cannot in any manner be said to be illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio or in contravention of any law. 23. Resultantly, this petition is found to be devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. .................