Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1 (MAN)

Union of India v. Jagdish Prasad Mandwra

2016-01-13

L.K.MOHAPATRA, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG and Shri L. Sharat Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dt. 22.9.2015 in WP(C) No.595 of 2014. The respondent No.1, who is the writ petitioner, was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Border Road Engineering Service under Border Road Development Board, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on the recommendation of the UPSC. While working as such, the National Highways Authority of India issued an advertisement on 4.3.2014 inviting applications from eligible officers of the State Government, Central Govt. etc. for appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of Manager (Technical). In response to the said advertisement, the respondent No.1 submitted a letter dt. 7.4.14 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application with an advance copy endorsed to National Highway Authority of India. Though his application was further forwarded by the Officer Commanding, 98 RCC (GREF) to the HQs 15 BRTF, the application seeking permission was returned by the DGBR office without forwarding it to the Secretary, Ministry of Transport on the ground that there is a ban on forwarding officers for proceeding on outside employment on regular basis. Challenging refusal on the part of the DGBR in granting permission to apply for the post advertised by National Highways Authority of India, the writ petition was filed. 3. During pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No.1 was allowed to appear in the test for such appointment but his result was kept in seal cover. The present appellants contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit stating therein that no objection certificate could not be granted to the respondent No.1 because of the ban having been imposed in forwarding officers for outside employment. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that an employee while joining service is subject to certain terms and conditions of service and cannot quit employment contrary to such terms and conditions of service and rules and therefore relief claimed in the writ petition could not be granted. It was also stated that the application submitted by the respondent No.1 was not through proper channel. 4. It was also stated that the application submitted by the respondent No.1 was not through proper channel. 4. The learned Single Judge observed that apart from the respondent No.1 Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto who were also working as Assistant Engineer in GREF had also applied for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the NHAI but they were permitted to appear in the test for recruitment in NHAI whereas the respondent No.1 was discriminated. 5. A policy was laid down for selection of officers for deputation/absorption/outside employment/foreign assignment. The said policy has been annexed as Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Present appellants) in the writ petition. So far as outside employment is concerned, it was decided that in case of deficiency in respective cadre, ban on outside employment will be imposed, if the overall cadre deficiency including that of Service Officers is greater than 15 per cent. It was also decided that officer applying directly against UPSC advertisement, will inform the Head of Department before expiry of the last date of application through proper channels giving complete details of the examination/post applied for, along with a copy of the paper cutting of advertisement. Though the ban order is confined to deficiency in the overall cadre to the extent of more than 15 per cent, the application of the respondent No.1 was rejected solely on the ground that there is a ban. No reason whatsoever was assigned in the order refusing permission which is annexed to the writ petition as AnnexureA/7. Therefore, the impugned order of refusal to grant permission is not in conformity with the policy laid down for outside employment. 6. Apart from the above, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, two other similarly situated officers working along with the respondent No.1 had also applied for permission and their applications were allowed whereas the respondent No.1 was discriminated on the ground of ban on outside employment. For the reasons stated above, we find no justification to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.