JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. Aggrieved by the impugned Anx.A8 letter dated 30.09.2020 issued by the respondents informing the applicant that since the competent authority of the Union Government in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, has not agreed with the proposal of the respondent All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regarding the applicant’s appointment as Advisor-II (on deputation basis) in the respondent AICTE consequent to his inclusion as Rank No.1 in the selection list referred to in Anx.A6, etc., he had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, by filing the instant Ext.P1 original application, O.A. No.533/2020 with the following prayers:- “(A) Issue an order quashing and setting aside Annexure A-B (B) Issue an order directing respondents to appoint the Applicant as Advisor-II in terms of the decision of the selection committee ratified by the Executive committee in the meeting held on 15/6/2020, evinced by Annexure A-6, (C) such other orders and directions as are deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned Ext.P6 final order in O.A. No.533/2020 on 26.03.2021 allowing the main pleas of the original applicant, by holding that the stand of the respondent Union Government that they have the discretionary power to insist that they cannot agree to the proposal for the aforesaid appointment of the applicant, due to non-waiver of the cooling off period as envisaged in the Union Government norms, is illegal and untenable inasmuch as the Union Government norms are not applicable to the respondent AICTE, which is an autonomous body established by an Act of the Parliament, etc. The Tribunal, as per Ext.P6, has consequently directed that the competent authority of the respondent AICTE will consider the selection of the applicant to the post of Advisor-II, on deputation basis and grant of waiving of the cooling off period as stated in Anx.A4 selection notification should consider his appointment as Advisor-II, in the light of the findings made by the Tribunal therein, etc., within a period of one month. 3. 3. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 final verdict rendered by the Tribunal as above, the Union Government has filed the instant original petition before this Court in terms of Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:- “………...to set aside Exhibit-P6 Order in O.A. No.533 of 2020 dated 26.03.2021 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in the interest of justice.” 4. Heard Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioner in the original petition/R1 in the O.A., Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in the original petition/the sole applicant in the O.A. and Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE appearing for R2 & R3 in the original petition/R2 & R3 in the O.A. 5. A detailed reference of the factual aspects involved in this case will be necessary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering College established by the Centre for Continuing Education, Kerala and that he is possessing the requisite degrees (M.Tech. in Engineering Management and a Doctorate degree in Management). The applicant had initially joined duty as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering on 16.08.2001 in the Government College of Engineering, Munnar. Later, he was promoted as Assistant Professor on 01.01.2006 and has been re-designated as Associate Professor with effect from 01.12.2009. While so, he was appointed on deputation basis as Director in the 2nd respondent AICTE as per Anx.A1 order dated 26.12.2012, which was extended upto 17.01.2020. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, as per Anx.A2 letter dated 16.01.2020 had sought the formal permission of the department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) of the Union Government and the competent authority of the Government of Kerala in the Higher Education Department to extend his deputation period for a further period of 6 months with effect from 17.01.2020. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, as per Anx.A2 letter dated 16.01.2020 had sought the formal permission of the department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) of the Union Government and the competent authority of the Government of Kerala in the Higher Education Department to extend his deputation period for a further period of 6 months with effect from 17.01.2020. In response to Anx.A2 request made on 16.01.2020, the competent authority of the Union Government in the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance & Pension (Department of Personnel & Training) had issued Anx.A3 letter dated 16.01.2020 informing the respondent AICTE that as the original applicant is on deputation from the State Government to the services of the respondent AICTE, which is a statutory autonomous body, the Union Government is neither a lending authority nor borrowing authority in such deputation appointments and hence the instructions issued by the DoPT O.M. dated 17.06.2010 (Anx.A9/Anx.R1(b), will not be applicable in his case and that the administrative department concerned is advised to take their own administrative decision as the above said Union Government norms are not applicable in the present case, etc. It appears that the original applicant's deputation was thus extended upto 30.06.2020 by the AICTE and his deputation term as Director was thus over on 30.06.2020 as can be seen from Anx.A5 proceedings dated 29.06.2020, issued by the 2nd respondent. 6. Prior to this, the 2nd respondent AICTE had issued Anx.A4 selection notification dated 04.01.2020 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Advisor-II on deputation basis. The last date for submission of application in terms of Anx.A4 selection notification dated 04.01.2020 was up to 12.05.2020. Clause 10 of Anx.A4 notification stipulates as follows :- “10. AICTE being an autonomous organisation, may waive off the “cooling off” period condition in the case of meritorious candidates. However, the parent organisation of the candidate shall have to give ‘No Objection Certificate’ in such cases”. 7. Further, Clause 12 of Anx.A4 stipulates that the terms and conditions of deputation will be regulated in terms of Department of Personnel & Training O.M.No.6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay) dated 17.06.2010 & O.M.No.2/6/2016-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 17.02.2016 as amended from time to time. A person in higher Grade Pay shall not be eligible for appointment to a post carrying a lower grade pay. 7. Further, Clause 12 of Anx.A4 stipulates that the terms and conditions of deputation will be regulated in terms of Department of Personnel & Training O.M.No.6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay) dated 17.06.2010 & O.M.No.2/6/2016-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 17.02.2016 as amended from time to time. A person in higher Grade Pay shall not be eligible for appointment to a post carrying a lower grade pay. The abovesaid O.M. dated 17.06.2010 & O.M. dated 17.02.2016 issued by the DoPT, referred to in clause 12 of Anx.A4 have been produced as Anx.A9/Anx.R1(b) & Anx.R1(d) in the pleadings of the applicant and the respondents respectively. So it can be seen that Anx.A4 selection notification for the post of Advisor-II dated 04.01.2020, has been issued prior to the above referred Anx.A3 letter dated 16.01.2020 issued by the DoPT of the respondent Union Government. 8. Further, it appears that the applicant had submitted his application in response to Anx.A4 selection notification and his case has been considered by the competent authority and the selection committee duly constituted by the 2nd respondent AICTE had considered the selection of the applicant and other eligible candidates for the post of Advisor-II and that the selection committee in the meeting held on 10.06.2020, had considered the performance of the candidates in the personal interviews and credentials submitted by them and had selected the applicant herein for the said post as Rank No.1 and a waiting list of 3 candidates was also prepared. The executive committee of the 2nd respondent AICTE had also duly approved the abovesaid decision of the selection committee and it was also resolved that should there be any vacancy generated in the next one year, candidates in the waiting list could be offered the appointment in the order of merit, etc. These aspects of the matter are evident from Anx.A6 minutes of the executive committee of the respondent AICTE held on 15.06.2020, as per item No.135.01.04 (see internal page No.4 of Anx.A6 given on page 44 of the paper book of this O.P.), which reads as follows:- item No.135.01.04 Administration Bureau : To consider and approve the recommendation of Selection Committee held on 10.06.2020 for the post of Advisor-II Group “A” post (on deputation basis). The Executive Committee was informed that a meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 10th June 2020 through a video conference. The Executive Committee was informed that a meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 10th June 2020 through a video conference. The Selection Committee base on the performance of the candidates in the personal interviews and the credentials submitted online, selected the following candidate for appointment to the post of Adisor-II on deputation basis in AICTE, in the pay scale of Rs.131100-216600 (Level 13A as per 7th CPC), subject to verification of original documents at the time of joining: item No.135.01.04 Administration Bureau : To consider and approve the recommendation of Selection Committee held on 10.06.2020 for the post of Advisor-II Group “A” post (on deputation basis). The Executive Committee was informed that a meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 10th June 2020 through a video conference. The Selection Committee base on the performance of the candidates in the personal interviews and the credentials submitted online, selected the following candidate for appointment to the post of Adisor-II on deputation basis in AICTE, in the pay scale of Rs.131100-216600 (Level 13A as per 7th CPC), subject to verification of original documents at the time of joining: Selected candidate: 1. Dr.Ramesh Unnikrishnan Waiting list candidates: 1. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Soni 2. Dr. Madhukar Maruti Waware 3. Dr. Sandipann Pralhad Narote The Executive Committee approved the decision of the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 10th June, 2020. It was also resolved that should there be any vacancy generated in the next one year, candidates in the waiting list be offered the appointment in order of merit.” 9. From the pleadings contained in the statement dated 20.11.2020 filed by the 2nd respondent AICTE before the Tribunal it is seen from paragraph No.4 thereof that later AICTE had sought formal approval from the Union Ministry of Education/Human Resource Development in the matter vide letter dated 16.06.2020 and sought to ratify the approval of the EC (Executive Committee) of the AICTE for selection and appointment of the applicant. Further from the pleadings and materials on record it appears that the representative of the Union Government in the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent AICTE had taken the stand that in view of clause 12 of Anx.A4 selection notification A9/Anx.R1(b) O.M. dated 17.06.2010 & Anx.R1(d) O.M. dated 17.02.2016 issued by the Union Government regarding cooling off period would be applicable and that the formal ratification or approval of the Union Government is necessary. It is on the basis of the said stand that the AICTE had later sought the formal approval and ratification of the Union Government, on the premise that the applicant had completed 7 years and 6 months on deputation basis, in the earlier post of Director in the AICTE and therefore, they sought formal ratification of the Union Government in that regard. 10. Subsequently the competent authority of the Union Government in the Ministry of Human Resources Development/ Education had informed the 2nd respondent AICTE that the said Union Ministry cannot agree to the proposal for the appointment of the petitioner on deputation basis as Advisor-II, in pursuance of Anx.A4 notification, is on the ground that the cooling off period cannot be waived by them, etc. The said rejection had been duly conveyed to the applicant as per the impugned Anx.A8 letter dated 30.09.2020. 11. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned Ext.P6 final order dated 26.03.2021 holding that the abovesaid Union Government norms at Anx.A9/Anx.R1(b) dated 17.06.2010 and Ext.R1(d) O.M. dated 17.02.2016 are not applicable in the present case in as much as the same would be invoked only in cases where the Union Government is either the borrowing authority or the lending authority in such deputation appointments. In the instant case Union Government is neither borrowing authority or the lending authority. It is common ground that the lending authority in the case of the applicant's deputation is the Government of Kerala in the Higher Education Department and the borrowing authority in the said case is the 2nd respondent-AICTE. It is on the basis of these findings that the Tribunal has allowed the main pleas of the petitioner and has issued directions in the matter of his selection and appointment as Advisor-II in R2 AICTE, consequent to his inclusion in the approved selection list referred to in Anx.A6 in pursuance of Anx.A4 selection notification, within one month, etc. 12. It is on the basis of these findings that the Tribunal has allowed the main pleas of the petitioner and has issued directions in the matter of his selection and appointment as Advisor-II in R2 AICTE, consequent to his inclusion in the approved selection list referred to in Anx.A6 in pursuance of Anx.A4 selection notification, within one month, etc. 12. We have heard the parties in extenso. 13. If Anx.A9/Anx.R1(b) O.M. dated 17.06.2010 & Anx.R1(d) dated 17.02.2016 issued by the DoPT of the Union Government are indeed applicable in the instant deputation in the case of the original applicant herein, then the clause in those O.Ms. for cooling off period and the subsequent provision therein that cooling off period could be waived only by the competent authority of the Union Government, etc. could be applicable in which case, the stand taken in the rejection proceedings at Anx.A8, could be justified. Then the only issue is as to whether the power conferred to the Union Government to refuse the grant of waiver of the cooling off period has been exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. 14. Anx.A9/Anx.R1(b) is the basic O.M. that governs the filed issued on 17.06.2010 by the DoPT of the Union Government. 15. Clause 8.4 of Anx.A9 provides that “there shall be mandatory cooling off period of 3 years upto every period of deputation/foreign service upto Joint Secretary level post and one year of additional Secretary level post.” and para.3 of Anx.R1(d) O.M. dated 17.02.2016 issued by the DoPT reads as follows (see page No.110 of the paper book of this O.P.):- “3. It has been decided that if the administrative Ministries/Departments and other borrowing organizations wish to retain an officer beyond 5 years, they may extend tenure of deputation covered by OM No.6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 17th June 2010, where absolutely necessary in public interest, upto a period not exceeding 7 years at a stretch. This shall be done with the approval of the Minister of the borrowing Ministry/Department concerned and in respect of other organizations with the approval of the Minister of the borrowing Ministry/Department with which they are administratively concerned, keeping in view the exigencies and subject to fulfillment of all other requirements such as willingness and vigilance clearance of the Officer concerned, NOC of the lending authority, UPSC / ACC approval wherever applicable. Thus, no case of extension shall be referred to Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi.” 16. A combined reading of clause 8.4 of Anx.A9 O.M. and clause 3 of Anx.R1(d) O.M. would make it clear that in a case where the deputation period is extended for a period not exceeding 7 years at a stretch, the same shall be done with the approval of the Minister of the borrowing Ministry/Department concerned and in respect of other organisations with the approval of the Minister of the borrowing Ministry/Department, with which they are administratively concerned, keeping in view the exigencies and subject to fulfillment of all other requirements such as willingness, vigilance clearance, NOC of the lending authority, etc. So, if Anx.A9/AAnx.R1(b) O.M. & Anx.R1(d) O.M. are in fact invokable and applicable in the instant case of deputation appointment of the original applicant then certainly, the requirement of cooling off period is relevant in as much as the original applicant has initially completed his deputation in the post of Advisor-II for a period of more than 7 years as can be seen from Anxs.A2, A5, etc. 17. So, the primary issue to be determined in this case as to whether Anx.A9/Anx.R1(b) O.M. dated 17.06.2010 & Anx.R1(d) O.M. dated 17.02.2016 issued by the DoPT could be invoked in the case of deputation appointment of the petitioner. Para. 2.1 of the basic O.M. at Anx.A9 dated 17.06.2010 provides as follows (see page 47 of the paper book of this O.P.):- “2.1 These orders will apply to all Central Government employees, who are regularly appointed on deputation/foreign service in accordance with Recruitment Rules of the ex-cadre posts, under the same or some other Departments of Central Government or under the State Governments/Union Territories Administration/Local Bodies or under Central/State PSUs/Autonomous Bodies etc. set up or controlled by Central/State Governments provided the foreign service under such PSUs/autonomous bodies has been permitted in relaxation of appointment on immediate absorption basis. These orders will also cover the cases of regular appointment on deputation/foreign service of employees of State Government/local bodies etc. as well as PSUs/Autonomous Bodies of Central/State Governments as per recruitment rules in the Central Government.” So also in Para 6 of Anx.R1(d) O.M. dated 17.02.2016 issued by the DoPT provides as follows (see page No.111 of the paper book of this O.P.):- “6. as well as PSUs/Autonomous Bodies of Central/State Governments as per recruitment rules in the Central Government.” So also in Para 6 of Anx.R1(d) O.M. dated 17.02.2016 issued by the DoPT provides as follows (see page No.111 of the paper book of this O.P.):- “6. It is also clarified that cases which are not covered by the OM dated 17.06.2020 including those where Central Government is neither lending authority nor borrowing authority, will continue to be decided in terms of the relevant provisions/rules/instructions etc. governing them.” 18. A mere reading of paragraph 2.1 of Anx.A9 would make it clear that the competent authority of the Union Government themselves have ordered in categorical and clear terms that the said Anx.A9 O.M. will apply only in cases where the Union Government is either lending authority or the borrowing authority. So also, in paragraph 6 of Anx.R1(d) O.M. dated 17.02.2016 also clarifies beyond the shadow of any doubt that cases which are not covered by Anx.A9 O.M. dated 17.06.2010 including those who were in the Central Government is neither the lending authority nor the borrowing authority, will be continued to be decided in terms of the relevant portions/Rules/instructions, etc. governing them. 19. Further, none other than the competent authority of the Union Government in the DoPT themselves have clarified the issue on an earlier occasion in a case involving none other than the present original applicant regarding his earlier deputation as Director as per Anx.A3 dated 16.01.2020. Anx.A3 was issued by the competent authority of the Union Government in the DoPT, consequent to the matter being referred to them by the 2nd respondent AICTE as per Anx.A2 letter dated 16.01.2020 in the matter of the consent/approval of the Union Government for extension of the deputation period of the applicant as Director by a further period of 6 months with effect from 17.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. In response to the request at Anx.A2 made by the 2nd respondent AICTE the competent authority of the Union Government in the DoPT has issued the abovesaid Anx.A3 letter dated 16.01.2020 that since the original applicant is on deputation in AICTE from the service of the State Government, who is Government of Kerala, and as the AICTE is a statutory autonomous body, and since the Union Government is neither the lending authority nor the borrowing authority in his case, Anx.A9 O.M. dated 17.06.2010 will not be applicable in his case. 20. Hence from the abovesaid aspects, it is specifically clear that Anx.A9 O.M. & Anx.R1(d) O.M. will not govern the deputation appointment of the petitioner in as much as it is common ground beyond any dispute that in the instant case of deputation the lending authority or the original applicant is the Government in the Higher Education Department (State Government) and the borrowing authority is the 2nd respondent AICTE, which is an independent and autonomous body established by an Act of the Parliament. 21. So, in the instant case, the Union Government is neither the lending authority nor the borrowing authority in the case of the deputation of the applicant and hence the abovesaid O.Ms at Anx.A9 & Anx.R1(d) cannot be pressed into service. 22. Hence the abovesaid primary contention raised by the petitioners herein will stand rejected as has been ordered by the Tribunal as well, in this case. 23. The second contention raised before us by the petitioners is that since none other than the competent authority of the respondent AICTE themselves have issued a specific condition in Clauses 10 & 12 of Anx.A4 selection notification, the norms for cooling off in terms of Anx.A9 & Anx.R1(d) O.Ms will apply. 24. It is true that the terms and conditions of deputation will be regulated in accordance with Anx.A9/Anx.R1(b) O.M. dated 17.06.2010 & Anx.R1(d) O.M. dated 17.02.2016. There could be cases where an official in the service of the Union Government, who is otherwise fully eligible for appointment on deputation basis to the post offered by the respondent AICTE could also apply. 25. In such a case, the Union Government is the lending authority and the 2nd respondent AICTE will be the borrowing authority. Since the Union Government is the lending authority in the case of any such eligible official, then the said O.Ms as above would certainly apply and it could be enunciating such scenarios that the 2nd respondent AICTE would have provided provision as in Clause 12 of Anx.A4. Since the Union Government is the lending authority in the case of any such eligible official, then the said O.Ms as above would certainly apply and it could be enunciating such scenarios that the 2nd respondent AICTE would have provided provision as in Clause 12 of Anx.A4. Even if such a provision as in Clause 12 is not expressly stated so long as the official who is taking deputation appointment in the 2nd respondent AICTE, is in the service of the Union Government, then automatically it goes without saying that the lending authority in this case would be the Union Government as above and whether a provision as in Clause 12 is explicitly incorporated or not, the rigour of Anx.A9 O.M. and Anx.R1(d) O.M. could apply with equal force irrespective as to whether such a provision as in Clause 12 is explicitly incorporated therein or is omitted. It could be possibly to take care of such situation that Clause 12 may have been imposed. 26. Of course, Clause 12 may also be capable of being read as a provision made insisting that in other cases where the Union Government is neither the lending authority or the borrowing authority in such deputation appointments offered by the 2nd respondent AICTE, the 2nd respondent AICTE is of the stand that the abovesaid Anx.A9 O.M. & Anx.R1(b) O.M. have been adopted as norms by the AICTE to regulate the deputation appointment. 27. The abovesaid aspect appears to be eminently reasonable more so particularly in the light of Clause 10 of Anx.A4 which stipulates that the 2nd respondent AICTE being an autonomous organisation may waive off the cooling off period condition in the case of meritorious candidates and that the parent organisation shall have to give No Objection Certificate, etc. So, in a case where the Union Government may not be either the lending authority or the borrowing authority, in the present case, still the 2nd respondent AICTE in discretion is seen as having adopted the abovesaid norms at Anx.A9 & Anx.R1(b), to regulate the deputation terms and conditions in other cases. In such cases of adoption of Government norms by independent statutory bodies, then the scenario would be wherever the term “Government” appears in such Governmental norms, the same will have to be construed as the parent organization, which in the instant case is the AICTE. In such cases of adoption of Government norms by independent statutory bodies, then the scenario would be wherever the term “Government” appears in such Governmental norms, the same will have to be construed as the parent organization, which in the instant case is the AICTE. In other words, wherever the term “Union Government” appears in Anx.A9 & Anx.R1(d) O.Ms., the same will have to be construed and substituted as “AICTE or the competent authority of the AICTE”. 28. As indicated above, it is all the more so as the 2nd respondent AICTE has also incorporated a provision as in Clause 10 that they have the discretion to waive off the cooling off period in case of meritorious candidates. 29. In the instant case, Anx.A2 issued by the 2nd respondent AICTE would make it clear that AICTE's approval process of the current academic year is currently undergoing, which has to be finalised within a definite time frame and that the applicant and another official have been instrumental in bringing various reforms to the automation of the entire approval process and has identified 3 centres where reforms were required and has effectively safeguarded the interest of the AICTE and that these reforms were centered towards ensuring quality technical education to the students throughout the country with the ultimate aim of improving the employability of engineering graduates causing of such engineering institutions approved by the AICTE. 30. Further, a reading of the selection proceedings involved in this case, as referred to in Anx.A6 would make it clear as per item No.135.01.04 thereof (see internal page 4 of Anx.A6) that the selection committee has found that the applicant is entitled to be selected as Rank No.1 in the abovesaid selection process in pursuance of Anx.A4 selection notification and another waiting list of 3 other candidates has also been approved. Further, very crucially, it can be seen from a reading of the abovesaid portion of Anx.A6 given on internal page 4 thereof, that the Executive Committee of the AICTE has also approved the abovesaid decision of the selection committee. Further, very crucially, it can be seen from a reading of the abovesaid portion of Anx.A6 given on internal page 4 thereof, that the Executive Committee of the AICTE has also approved the abovesaid decision of the selection committee. So also, it is clearly stated in Ext.P3 statement dated 20.11.2020, filed by the 2nd & 3rd respondents (AICTE) in the O.A. before the Tribunal, more particularly, in paragraph No.8 thereof that taking into account the overall exigencies of service and having regard to the totality of the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of this case, the competent authority of the AICTE has taken a considered decision to recommend to the Union Government that the cooling off period is to be waived off in the case of the applicant. Since the Tribunal and this Court have concurrently found that Anx.A9 & Anx.R1(d) norms of cooling off period cannot be invoked by the Union Government as against the present applicant herein and more so particularly in the light of the categorical stand taken by the Union Government on a previous occasion in the case of the applicant as per Anx.A3, the Union Government has no competence or discretion to decide as to whether the cooling off period is to be waived or rejected in the case of the petitioner based on those Union Government norms. However, at best, in view of Clause 12 of Anx.A4, it is only to be held that the 2nd respondent AICTE by virtue of their independent powers as a statutorily established body has taken the decision to adopt those norms at Anx.A9 & Anx.R1(d) in the present deputation selection and that too in cases where the Union Government is neither the lending authority nor the borrowing authority. Hence, going by the cumulative effect of Clause 10 & Clause 12 of Anx.A4 selection notification, the discretion is conferred exclusively and solely on the 2nd respondent AICTE to decide as to whether cooling off objection is to be raised and whether cooling off objection is to be waived in appropriate case of meritorious candidates. Hence, going by the cumulative effect of Clause 10 & Clause 12 of Anx.A4 selection notification, the discretion is conferred exclusively and solely on the 2nd respondent AICTE to decide as to whether cooling off objection is to be raised and whether cooling off objection is to be waived in appropriate case of meritorious candidates. From the abovesaid pleadings and materials on record referred to hereinabove, the competent authority of the AICTE has taken the decision to waive the cooling off period in the case of the petitioner, even if it is construed that cooling off norms would be applicable in the case of the applicant, as the abovesaid norms at Anx.A9 & Anx.R1(d) have been adopted by the AICTE. 31. So, the upshot of the above discussion is that the competent authority of the AICTE has already taken a well considered stand taking into account the facts and circumstances concerning the applicant and more particularly taking into account the abovesaid aspects as well as his merit that the cooling off period is to be waived in the case of the petitioner. True that the said decision of the respondent AICTE, as referred to in paragraph No.8 of Ext.P3 reply statement is a decision taken by them to recommend the Union Government to waive off the cooling off period. The said decision was taken by the respondent AICTE on the premise as if the authority to grant waiver of cooling off period is to the Union Government in the case of the applicant. Since, we have already found that the Union Government has no competence either to grant or to refuse discretion in the matter of waiver of cooling off period in the case of the applicant, the only and sole authority competent in that regard is the 2nd respondent AICTE, who has already taken the abovesaid decision. The said decision of 2nd respondent AICTE as referred to in paragraph No.8 of Ext.P2 reply statement, is a decision with pith and substance amounting to a decision of the 2nd respondent AICTE to grant waiver to the cooling off period in the case of the applicant eventhough he had completed the about 7 ½ years of deputation as Director in the previous occasion. 32. We had repeatedly querried to Sri. 32. We had repeatedly querried to Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, as to whether the respondent Union Government have any objection regarding the integrity, competence or ability of the petitioner during his earlier period in question as Director which he had served for about 7 ½ years. 33. Sri.P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, with his usual sense of fairness has stated before us and that too on the basis of instructions of the competent authority of the Union Government that the respondent Union Government has no such case either regarding the integrity, competence or ability of the petitioner. 34. On the other hand, we had also querried to Sri.V. Sajith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE appearing for 2nd & 3rd respondents in this case, as to whether these issues. 35. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent AICTE has submitted before us on the basis of instructions of his parties, various annexures produced in this case, Ext.P3 reply statement filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal as well as on the basis of pleadings and materials on records that considering performance of the original applicant, the AICTE has taken the abovesaid decision referred to hereinabove and more particularly the abovesaid decision referred to in paragraph No.8 of Ext.P3 reply statement that the cooling off period in the case of the applicant is to be waived off. 36. Before parting with this case, we will also have to refer to some of the submissions made by the learned counsel, who wanted impleadment of a third party in the abovesaid proceedings. 37. We querried to the learned counsel concerned as to whether the said third party is an applicant, who had duly applied for deputation in pursuance of Anx.A4 selection notification. It has been candidly and fairly submitted by the said learned counsel appearing for the said third party concerned that the said party has never been a party in the O.A. before the Tribunal in this case and that he is not an eligible candidate who has applied for the instant deputation selection and appointment as covered by Anx.A4. Hence, we have dismissed his application for impleadment. Hence, we have dismissed his application for impleadment. However, with the permission of Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners in the O.P., Sri.P.J. Elvin Peter, learned Advocate appearing for R1 in O.P./original applicant as well as Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel of the AICTE appearing for R2 & R3 herein, we give permission to the said learned counsel to make submissions in the matter. 38. The first of said contention is that Clause 15 of Anx.A-1 proceedings in the matter of earlier appointment of the applicant as Director makes it clear that during his tenure in the AICTE, he would be governed by Government of India Rules regarding discipline and conduct as applicable to AICTE employees and further that, any other aspect which is not specifically enumerated here, he/she would be governed by Government of India rules unless specified otherwise. Hence, it is urged before us that though Anx.A-1 is regarding the post deputational appointment of the applicant during his earlier designation as Director, he will be governed by Government of India rules as per Anxs.A-9, R-1(d), etc. Further that, Clause 12 of Anx.A-4 selection notification itself stipulates the applicability of Anxs.A-9 & R-1(d) OMs. Hence, it is urged that the cooling off period could be invoked by the respondent Union Government, and so the rejection of the case of the applicant by the competent authority of the Union Government, in no having waived off the cooling off period, as referred to in Anx.A-8 rejection order is not amenable for any interference at the hands of the Tribunal or this Court. That, the Tribunal went wrong in that regard. After hearing both sides, we are not impressed with this argument for reasons more than one. Anx.A-1 is an appointment order issued to the petitioner by the AICTE in the earlier post of Director on deputation basis, after the conclusion and finalization of selection process on deputation basis. So, the said clauses in Anx.A-1 can regulate only the tenure of the appointment of the petitioner as Director, and cannot have any impact in the case of the selection process initiated in terms of the subsequent post of Advisor Grade II, as covered by the instant selection notification at Anx.A-4. So, the said clauses in Anx.A-1 can regulate only the tenure of the appointment of the petitioner as Director, and cannot have any impact in the case of the selection process initiated in terms of the subsequent post of Advisor Grade II, as covered by the instant selection notification at Anx.A-4. Moreover, a reading of Clause 15 of Anx.A-1 would make it clear that the said matters are mainly in the domain of disciplined conduct of officers serving AICTE on deputation basis. Therefore, the second sentence of Clause 15 of Anx.A-1 regarding any other aspect should be read as having to take its colour contour and content from the first sentence of Clause 15 and therefore, it can only be in the domain of discipline, control and related aspects, or any other matter on which there are no norms which may arise during the tenure of the applicant as Director on deputation basis. Assuming that Clause 15 of Anx.A-1 is also envisaging the applicability of Anxs.A-9 & R-1(d) OMs, the same can be seen only in the context of Clause 12 of Anx.A-4. So, at best, Clause 15 of Anx.A-1 and Clause 12 of Anx.A-4 can be seen only as a decision of the respondent AICTE in having independently adopted the provisions of Anxs.A-9 & R-1(d) to regulate the deputation cases of officials like the present applicant, wherein neither the Union Government is the lending authority nor the ordering authority. We have already held that in such a case, the term Union Government appearing in those OMs should be construed and substituted as AICTE, and this could be all the more so in view of Clause 10 of Anx.A-4. Further that in the instant case, the respondent AICTE, in exercise of their independent discretion, has already laid down the cooling off period in the case of the applicant and the sole authority in that regard is exclusively vested with R-2 AICTE and not with the Union Government, so long as the said Government is neither lending authority nor ordering authority in the case of deputation of the present applicant. 39. So we are constrained to reject the abovesaid arguments and contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the 3rd party/stranger. 39. So we are constrained to reject the abovesaid arguments and contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the 3rd party/stranger. The second contention urged before us is that going by the provisions of Sec.8 of the AICTE Act, the approval of Union Government is necessary for the appointment of the petitioner on deputation basis as Advisor and hence, the decision of the Union Government as referred to in Anx.A-4, not to agree with the proposal of promotion of the petitioner on deputation basis, in pursuance of Anx.A-6 select list, on the ground of non waiver of cooling off period by the Union Government, cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal has went wrong in that regard, etc. 40. Sec.8 of the AICTE Act, 1987, reads as follows: “8. Appointment of officers and other employees of the Council (1) For the purpose of enabling it efficiently to discharge its functions under this Act, the Council shall, subject to such regulations as may be made in this behalf, appoint (whether on deputation or otherwise) such number of officers and other employees as it may consider necessary: Provided that the appointment of such category of officers, as may be specified in such regulations, shall be subject to the approval of the Central Government. (2) Every officer or other employee appointed by the Council shall be subject to such conditions of service and shall be entitled to such remuneration as may be determined by regulations.” 41. The proviso to Sec.8(1) stipulates that appointment of such category officers as may be specified in such regulations, shall be subject to the approval of the Central Government. In other words, if the regulations referred to in Sec.8(1) provide that the appointment to the category of post concerned, whether be it deputation or otherwise to the post concerned, will be subject to the approval of the Central Government, etc, Then, in view of such specifications in the regulation, the approval of the Union Government will be necessary even for an appointment on deputation basis. 42. 42. We pertinently requested the learned counsel appearing for the third party as well as the learned counsels appearing for all the parties in this case, as to whether any regulation has been made under Sec.8(1), wherein it has been explicitly specified that for the purpose of appointment to the post of Advisor Grade-II (covered by Anx.A-4) on deputation basis or otherwise, the approval of the Union Government is necessary. Both sides have also made available to us a copy of the statutory regulations framed under Sec.8(1) in which the post of Adviser Grade II is also involved. The said regulation are published in the Gazette of India, and has been framed on 1.11.2007. Various categories of posts are included in the Schedule thereto. The said Schedule contain a tabular column of various posts. Sl.Nos. 2 to 7 respectively of the said tabular column deals with the Sl.No., Name of the post, No. of posts, Classification, Scale of pay, Whether selection or non selection, Whether the benefit of added years of service admissible under Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, is applicable or not, etc. 43. The abovesaid post of Advisor Grade II has been included as Category No.21 there under. No where in the abovesaid regulations, is there any mention or specification that for the post of Advisor Grade II, the appointment be it on deputation or otherwise, would require the prior approval of the Central Government, as envisaged in proviso to Sec.8(1) of the AICTE Act. We repeatedly requested the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd party to pin point as to any such specification in the regulation and we note that the learned counsel could not pin point any such specification in the regulation. 44. By way of abundant caution, we requested to both Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. (Union Government) as well as Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent AICTE, as to whether any provision has been made in the statutory regulations mentioning that for the purpose of appointment to the post of Advisor Grade II, be it on deputation or otherwise, such appointment would require the prior approval of the Union Government as envisaged in the proviso to Sec.8(1) and also as to whether the respondents have any such case . 45. 45. Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. (Union Government) would submit that the petitioner Union Government has no such case, and the regulations does not appear to contain any such specification as envisaged in the proviso to Sec.8(1). Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent AICTE, has also made submissions on the same line. 46. The abovesaid contention has been raised by the third party which has not been raised by any of the other parties concerned. Still, for the purpose of satisfying us about the tenability or otherwise of the abovesaid contention, we permitted the learned counsel appearing for the third party to make submission and we also queried the learned counsel for all the parties concerned to give their response in that regard. 47. After hearing both sides, we are constrained to hold that we cannot accept the abovesaid contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the third party and hence, we are rejecting the same and so we have to hold that the approval or prior approval of the Union Government is not necessary for the purpose of deputational appointment to the post of Advisor Grade II as notified in Anx.A-4 selection notification. Lastly, yet another contention is raised before us by the learned counsel appearing for the third party on the basis of the provisions contained in Sec.15 of the AICTE Act. Sec.15 of the Act deals with payment to the Council and it stipulates that the Central Government may after due appropriation made by Parliament by law in this behalf, pay to the Council in each financial year such sums as may be considered necessary for the performance of functions of the Council per that Act. On this basis, the learned Advocate appearing for the 3rd party would submit that the payment to the Council is made after due appropriation by the Parliament by law in this behalf, etc. An official serving the AICTE to any other post including the post of Advisor Grade-II should be deemed to be a government servant of the Union Government, and hence the prior approval of the Union Government is mandatory. An official serving the AICTE to any other post including the post of Advisor Grade-II should be deemed to be a government servant of the Union Government, and hence the prior approval of the Union Government is mandatory. The learned counsel appearing for the original applicant would respond to this by citing the provision contained in Sec.16 of the Act which deals with the fund of the Council, which says that the Council shall have its own funds, and all such sums which may be paid to the Council from time to time by the Central Government and the receipts of the Council of the Central Government, etc, Therefore, it is not as if the funds of the Council is exclusively those given by the Union Government, etc. 48. We need not get into the said issue except to hold that merely because payment to the Council in terms of Sec.15 of the Act is made by the Union Government after due appropriation made by the Parliament by law, will not have the effect of treating or holding that the officers and staff of the AICTE should be deemed to be government servants under the Union Government. 49. We pertinently asked the learned counsel appearing for the third party as to whether he could pin point any provision in the AICTE Act or in the statutory regulations which would indicate or hold that officials and staff of the AICTE should be deemed to be government servants under the Union Government. 50. No such provision could be pointed out by the third party to us. Hence, we are constrained to overrule the abovesaid contention of the third party as well. 51. Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for R-1 in the O.P./original applicant would also point to us that his party has produced Anx.A10 proceedings dated 30.9.2020 along with a rejoinder statement dated 5.2.2021 filed by the original applicant before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the original applicant would point out that earlier when steps were taken for absorption of eligible officers on deputation in the post of Director/Assistant Director, the Executive Committee (EC) of the AICTE rejected the proposal to refer the matter to the Union Ministry’s consideration, as can be seen from Anx.A-10 proceedings dated 30.9.2020 issued by the EC of the AICTE. 52. 52. Anx.A-10 issued by R-2 AICTE and Anx.A-3 issued by the Department of Personal Training of the Union Government, would clearly show the respective stands of respondent AICTE and the Union Government, which has been dealt with hereinabove, that so long as the Union Government is neither the lending authority nor the ordering authority, in the case of deputation of particular officer concerned, and the abovesaid norms of the Union Government by itself will not apply, and consequently the Union Government will not have the jurisdictional competence to reject appointment of a candidate duly selected by the AICTE, on the abovesaid grounds etc. The said aspects have already been dealt with hereinabove and need not be reiterated. No other contentions have been raised before us by the learned counsel appearing for the third party. 53. However, Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for R-1 in the O.P./original applicant would point out that the third party has also raised unnecessary and untenable considerations in the affidavit filed in support of this impleading application at I.A. No. 1/2021 in the present O.P., etc. The learned Advocate would point out that in reply thereto, he has filed an affidavit accompanying I.A. No. 4/2021 rebutting abovesaid pleas by placing reliance on Anx.R-1(a) enquiry report which would rebut the abovesaid contentions of the 3rd party/stranger, etc. 54. We have already indicated hereinabove that we have to reject the abovesaid plea for impleadment and we have heard the learned advocate appearing for the 3rd party only with the prior permission of the advocates concerned. In the abovesaid contentions, the counsel appearing for the 3rd party has urged only the abovesaid referred 3 contentions, which have already been rejected. Since, other aspects are not advanced before us, there is no necessity for us to get into those issues. Moreover, those issues/objections have never been raised by the respondents in the O.A. before the Tribunal or petitioners in the O.P. Hence, there is no necessity for us to get into any such contentions that may have been raised by a third party, who is a total stranger to this case. 55. The upshot of above discussion is that the impugned rejection decision of the Union Government as referred to in Anx.A-8 as been rightly quashed by the Tribunal, and no interference is called for by us. 55. The upshot of above discussion is that the impugned rejection decision of the Union Government as referred to in Anx.A-8 as been rightly quashed by the Tribunal, and no interference is called for by us. A reading of Anx.A-6 proceedings as well as Ext.P-3 reply statement of R-2 AICTE, more particularly para 8 thereof, would make it clear that the duly constituted Selection Committee has indeed selected the applicant as Rank No.1 in the abovesaid selection process, and the Executive Committee of the respondent AICTE has also approved the said decision of Selection Committee. Further, the competent authority of the AICTE has also taken decision to waive off the cooling off period in the case of the original applicant. We pertinently requested Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE, on those aspects, and those factual aspects borne out from abovesaid Anx.A-8 & Ext.P-6 reply statement, have been also endorsed before us as factually correct. So, we further requested the learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE as to what steps actually remains, and we are told that since the Executive Committee has already approved the decision of the Selection Committee and in view of the findings of the Tribunal and this Court on the matters in Annexure-A8, all what remains is that the competent authority concerned, namely the Chairperson of the respondent AICTE, will have to issue the formal order appointing the applicant to the post of Advisor-II on deputation basis, on the basis of his selection as per Anx.A-6, in pursuance of Anx.A-4 selection notification. In view of abovesaid aspects, the considered view of the Tribunal at Ext.P-6 does not deserve any interdiction at the hands of this Court, as the contentions raised by the Original Petitioner (Union Government) are not tenable or sustainable. Since, there has been long delay in abovesaid process, especially on account of the filing and entertaining of the present O.P., it is ordered in the interest of justice that the competent authority of R-2 AICTE, viz., its Chairperson will issue orders appointing the original applicant as Advisor-II on deputation basis in pursuance of Annexures-A6 selection proceedings and A4 selection notification, without any further delay, at any rate within an outer time limit of 2 weeks. The orders and directions of the Tribunal at Ext.P-6 will stand modified to the limited extent as above. The orders and directions of the Tribunal at Ext.P-6 will stand modified to the limited extent as above. The petition fails and the Original Petition (CAT) will stand dismissed.