# Neeraj Kumar Pandey v. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 387
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-02-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22335 of 2009
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeraj-kumar-pandey-v-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-and-others-41495
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Deputation-
petitioner
a
senior
administrative officer- challenged the
order passed by district Judge Mathura-
refusing consent for appointment on
deputation keeping in view of decision of
Administrative Committee of High Court-
held-deputanist has no right to claim the
post on deputation-being subordinate to
High Court-District Judge rightly refused
to grant permission.

Held: Para 10

In the present case, the petitioner's
employer i.e. District Judge, Mathura has
refused to accord consent on the basis of
policy decision taken by the High Court,
and hence in the absence of the consent
of his employer, the petitioner cannot
claim
as
of
right
much
less
a
fundamental right for appointment to a
post under Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Chandigarh on deputation. The petitioner
being an employee of district judgeship
subordinate to and under control of the
High Court, is bound by the policy
decision taken by the High Court in its
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
Administrative Committee meeting as
stated above.
Case Law discussed:
(1994) 4 SCC 659, 2004(3) E.S.C.(Alld.)-1404,
(1978) 2 SCC 102.

## Text

2 All] Neeraj Kumar Pandey V. The High Court Judicature at Allahabad and others
387
ensure that only such person is appointed
as Assistant Teacher, who is eligible as
per law.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 17.02.2009 passed by the Zila Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, respondent no. 2 is
hereby quashed and this writ petition
stands allowed with the directions given
hereinabove.

10. Since the order has been passed
in the teeth of the judgement of this Court
passed in the case of Committee of
management of Vishva Nath Vidyalaya
Mundera, Allahabad (supra), which has
also been noticed by the Zila Basic
Shiksha Adhikari in its order dated
17.02.2009 but he has refused to comply
with the direction issued by this Court, it
is directed that a copy of this judgement
be sent to the Directorate of Education
(Basic) who shall call for an explanation
from the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Allahabad, respondent no. 2 for referring
the matter to the State Government
despite the directions of this Court having
been issued whereby the conditions laid
down in the Government Order dated
20.01.2003 for seeking approval of the
State Government had been set aside.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22335 of 2009
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22368 of 2009

Neeraj Kumar Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The
High
Court
of
Judicature
at
Allahabad and others
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amit Sthalekar

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Deputation-
petitioner
a
senior
administrative officer- challenged the
order passed by district Judge Mathura-
refusing consent for appointment on
deputation keeping in view of decision of
Administrative Committee of High Court-
held-deputanist has no right to claim the
post on deputation-being subordinate to
High Court-District Judge rightly refused
to grant permission.

Held: Para 10

In the present case, the petitioner's
employer i.e. District Judge, Mathura has
refused to accord consent on the basis of
policy decision taken by the High Court,
and hence in the absence of the consent
of his employer, the petitioner cannot
claim
as
of
right
much
less
a
fundamental right for appointment to a
post under Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Chandigarh on deputation. The petitioner
being an employee of district judgeship
subordinate to and under control of the
High Court, is bound by the policy
decision taken by the High Court in its
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
Administrative Committee meeting as
stated above.
Case Law discussed:
(1994) 4 SCC 659, 2004(3) E.S.C.(Alld.)-1404,
(1978) 2 SCC 102.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. The question for consideration
being the same, both these petitions are
being decided by this common judgement.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Amit Sthalekhar appearing for the
respondents.

3. The petitioner, an employee of
Mathura
judgeship,
has
prayed
for
quashing of order dated 1.4.09 appended
as annexure no. 10 to the writ petition, by
which District Judge, Mathura, on the
basis of letter of High Court dated
12.11.08 has refused to relieve him for
purpose of joining on deputation in Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.

4. The Administrative committee of
the High Court vide its resolution dated
17.10.2008, has taken a policy decision
not to send any non gazetted employee on
deputation. This resolution has been
appended as annexure no. C.A.-5 to the
counter affidavit. It is on the basis of this
policy decision taken by the High Court
that impugned order refusing to relieve
the petitioner has been passed by the
District Judge, Mathura.

5. Contention on the counsel for
petitioner
is
that
Administrative
Committee of the High Court in its
resolution dated 17.10.2008, has not
considered letters dated 2.8.2007 and
4.7.2008 written by the District Judge,
Mathura concerning petitioner's present
selection on deputation, copies of which
have beep appended as annexure nos. 4 &
5 to the writ petition. According to him,
the
letters
considered
by
the
Administrative
Committee
in
its
resolution dated 17.10.08 pertain to
petitioner's earlier selection & deputation
in Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.
It is also contended that policy decision
has been taken by the Administrative
Committee of the High Court and not by
the Full Court.

6. Once a policy decision has been
taken and communicated to all concerned
for its implementation, it has to be
necessarily adhered to so long it is not
withdrawn,
modified
or
substituted.
Therefore, policy decision having been
taken in regard to a particular subject, it is
not necessary for the Administrative
Committee to consider each & every letter
on that subject and the submission made
by the counsel for petitioner in this regard
has no substance.

7. In UmapatiChoudhary Vs. State
Of Bihar and another (1994) 4 SCC
659, while considering the question of
deputation of an employee of one
department to another, the Apex Court in
paragraph no. 8 of the aforesaid decision
held as under:

"Deputation can be aptly described
as an assignment of an employee
(commonly
referred
to
as
the
deputationist) of one department or cadre
or even an organisation (commonly
referred to as the parent department or
lending authority)to another department
or cadre or organisation (commonly
referred to as the borrowing authority).
The necessity for sending on deputation
arises in public interest to meet the
exigencies of public service. The concept
2 All] Muhammad Sabbu V. State of U.P.
389
of deputation is consensual and involves
a voluntary decision of the employer to
lend the services of his employee and a
corresponding
acceptance
of
such
service by the borrowing employer. It
also involves the consent of the employee
to go on deputation.

8. A Division Bench on this Court
in Civil Accounts Association Through
General Secretary and others Vs.
Union of India and others (2004(3)
E.S.C. (Alld.)-1404, in paragraph 23 & 24
of the judgement, has also reiterated the
same view as in Umapati Choudhary's
case (supra).

9. Thus, it is apparent that for the
purposed of deputation, consent of the
employer,
borrowing
employer
and
employee concerned is necessary. In the
absence of consent of any of aforesaid
three persons, there cannot be any
deputation.

10. In the present case, the
petitioner's employer i.e. District Judge,
Mathura has refused to accord consent on
the basis of policy decision taken by the
High Court, and hence in the absence of
the consent of his employer, the petitioner
cannot claim as of right much less a
fundamental right for appointment to a
post under Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Chandigarh on deputation. The petitioner
being an employee of district judgeship
subordinate to and under control of the
High Court, is bound by the policy
decision taken by the High Court in its
Administrative Committee meeting as
stated above.

11. So far as the submission that
aforesaid policy decision has been taken
by the Administrative Committee and not
by the Full Court, is concerned, the same
has also no force in view of the
observations of the Apex Court in State
of U.P. Vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and
another (1978) 2 SCC 102, paragraph no.
17, which are as under:

"17..........The Administrative Judge
or the Administrative Committee is a mere
instrumentality through which the entire
Court acts for the more convenient
transaction in its business, the assumed
basis of the arrangement being that such
instrumentalities
will
only
act
in
furtherance of the broad policies evolved
from time to time by the High Court as a
whole. Each Judge of the High Court is
an integral limb of the Court. He is its
altergo. It is therefore inappropriate to
say that a Judge or a Committee of
Judges on the High Court authorised by
the Court to act on its behalf is a delegate
of the Court.

12. For the reasons stated above, in
the considered opinion of this Court, the
order impugned dated 1.4.2009 does not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

13. Consequently, both the writ
petitions
fail
and
are
accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19672
of 2008

Muhammad Sabbu

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party