WP(C) No.3433/2007 Page 1 of 4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +WP(C) No.3433/2007 Reserved on: 22nd May, 2008 %Date of Decision: 4th July, 2008 Union of India & Ors. ...Appellant Through: Mr.S.K. Dubey, Advocate. Versus Ct. Shamsher Singh …Respondent Through: Mr. K.C. Mittal and Mr. U. Srivastava, Advocates. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? J.R. Midha, J. Respondent joined CISF as Constable in 1989 and he was working at Mundali in 2006. Central Finger Print Bureau issued a notification dated 2nd February, 2006, which was circulated to CISF regarding requirement of Constable on deputation. The respondent applied for deputation and he was finally selected and absorbed on deputation to Central Finger Print Bureau on 25th April, 2006 and he is continuing on the said post. Vide Notification dated 19th March, 2007, the respondent was prematurely repatriated to his parent Department, which was challenged by the respondent before WP(C) No.3433/2007 Page 2 of 4 the learned Tribunal on the ground of violative of principles of natural justice. The learned Tribunal allowed the OA and quashed order dated 19th March, 2007 which is under challenge before us. The petitioner has challenged order of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the selection process in which the respondent was selected was illegal as it suffered from non-consideration of similarly situated eligible candidates, non-fulfillment of criteria in the case of the respondent as complete ACR dossiers along with the annexures were not forwarded. It is further contended that the DPC was waiting for sponsoring of the candidates from CISF and the DPC was convened in haste within 24 hrs. without preparation of a comparative chart, suitability, fulfillment of criteria of other candidates, which vitiated the selection procedure and, therefore, there was no necessity to grant personal hearing to the respondent. We have heard the parties at length and have carefully considered their respective contentions. We have also perused the original record. The respondent was appointed for a fixed period of three years from 25th April, 2006 and he is entitled to hold the post for the said period. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through Government of Pondicherry Vs. Ramakrishnan and others [(2005) 8 SCC 394] relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India [(1958) SCR 828] held that in the case where deputation is for a specific WP(C) No.3433/2007 Page 3 of 4 term, it cannot be curtailed except on the ground of suitability or unsatisfactory work. We, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 19th March, 2007 does not cast any stigma on the respondent. The finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is correct. The Tribunal has rightly held that since the order dated 19th March, 2007 adversely affects the respondent, he should have been heard in the matter and, therefore, the order dated 19th March, 2007 is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. We are in agreement with the said finding that the order dated 19th March, 2007 is violative of the principles of natural justice. We do not agree with the petitioner that there was no necessity for personal hearing to the respondent. With respect to the contention of the petitioner that the selection process of the respondent is illegal as similarly situated eligible candidates were not considered and complete ACR dossiers were not forwarded, we have examined the relevant records. We find that the DPC selected the respondent on 10th March, 2006. On the same date, i.e. 10th March, 2006 Sohan Singh, who had been working with the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) filed a complaint and continued filing complaints which ultimately resulted in the order dated 19th March, 2007. We fail to understand how Sohan Singh came to know of the findings of the DPC on the same day and he filed the complaint on the same WP(C) No.3433/2007 Page 4 of 4 day. Be that as it may, we need not comment on the merits of this case as we find the order dated 19th March, 2007 is violative of principles of natural justice and has been rightly set aside. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Petition on this short ground alone. However, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate fresh action after providing sufficient opportunity to the respondent before taking any action. (J.R. MIDHA) JUDGE (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE July 4, 2008 s.pal