THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.20162 of 2010 17-08-2010 BETWEEN; Union of India, rep. By Under Secretary, New Delhi ...Petitioner vs. Somesh Kumar, IAS, Chennai and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.20162 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) This writ petition by the Union of India is misconceived. It is directe against the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribuna Hyderabad Bench (the Tribunal) dated 17-04-2008 disposing o O.A.No.555 of 2007. As the challenge in the writ petition is against a brief order, w consider it appropriate to extract the order of the Tribunal, which reads a under:- “Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned senio standing counsel. The learned senior standing counsel submitted that th very relief sought for by the applicant is only to the effect that he shall b permitted to continue on deputation with aide et action till 15.05.2008 and tha it is only less than a month’s time from today and that the applicant i continuing on deputation by virtue of interim orders of this Tribunal and as is less than one month, there is no need to pass any order on merits and th application may be disposed of as no further orders need be passed. As n reply is filed, the contention of the learned senior standing counsel appearin for the respondents is taken on record. We are of the considered view tha we need not go into the merits of the case in view of the fact that th applicant is continuing on deputation by virtue of the interim orders of thi Tribunal and the very prayer of the applicant is only for permission t continue till 15.05.2008 which is less than a month from today and that th applicant can continue there up to 15.05.2008 only. Accordingly, the O.A i disposed of without going into the merits of the case permitting the applican to continue on deputation only up to 15.05.2008.” The 1st respondent-original applicant filed O.A.No.669 of 200 aggrieved by the rejection of his application for extension of a foreig assignment on deputation. The order of rejection was on the ground that the applicant is granted a two years extension as sought, the total perio would exceed the maximum period of five years prescribed under th guidelines, namely the Consolidated Instructions on Foreign Assignmen of Indian Experts, dated 20-06-1991. The Tribunal noticed (in it earlier order dated 23-03-2007, disposing of the O.A.) that the Governmen of India had issued revised guidelines dated 27-12-2006, amending th earlier guidelines and increasing the maximum period of foreig assignment from five years to seven years for those who have less than 3 years of service (as against the ceiling of five years stipulated for thos who have less than 25 years of service, in the earlier guidelines). Th Tribunal in the circumstances ordered that the applicant may submit fresh representation quoting guideline No.15 of the guidelines dated 27 12-2006 renewing his request for extension of deputation till 15-05-200 and that on such representation, the Appointments Committee sha consider the same in the light of the revised guidelines and pas appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt o the representation. The Tribunal also directed that till the disposal of suc representation, status quo shall be maintained, namely that the applican would be permitted to continue on foreign deputation. Thereafter the matter was considered and rejected. The applicant (th 1st respondent herein) filed another application, O.A.No.555 of 200 aggrieved by a decision of the Government of India dated 14-06-200 again rejecting his request for extension of foreign deputation for a perio of two years commencing from 16-05-2006. An interim orde appears to have been granted in this O.A and eventually by the orde impugned the O.A was disposed of. As is apparent from the text of th order of the Tribunal, the order is passed on the basis of the consen between the parties as expressed through respective counsel. The learne Senior Standing Counsel for the petitioner appears to have submitte before the Tribunal that as the applicant sought permission to continue o deputation only till 15-05-2008, and as this period is less than a mont away and as the applicant was continued on the basis of interim orders o the Tribunal, there was no need to pass any order on merits and that th O.A may be disposed of and no further orders need be passed. This i what the Tribunal did, acceding to the submission on behalf of th petitioner herein as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet had considered the representation of th applicant and while rejecting the same by an order dated 14-06-200 (impeached in O.A.No.555 of 2007) had also decided to initiat disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and that the petitione apprehends that the order of the Tribunal and the tenor of the order woul come in the way of the petitioner taking appropriate action against th applicant. This is a matter on which we are not called upon to pronounc an opinion. Suffice it to record that the O.A was disposed of in the manne it was by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the submissions made by th Standing Counsel on behalf of the Union of India. It is not the pleade case of the petitioner that the said submission was made unauthorisedl by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India before th Tribunal. As the order is a consent order we are not inclined to interfere There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 17th AUGUST 2010. TSNR