HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3463 OF 2011 Between: A. Ravindranathan S/o Late A.S. Nayar aged about 58 years ………….Petitioner AND All India Council Technical Education (Statutory Body of the Government of India) represented by its Member Secretary Chandralok Building, 7th Floor, and three others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 9.2.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 722 of 2009 and quash the same as illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was originally appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk on 18.6.1980 and promoted as Upper Divisional Clerk on 1.1.1987 under the control of 4th respondent-Divisional Manger (personal and Administration) Andaman and Nicobar Islands Forest and Plantation Development Corporation Limited, herein. While so, the first respondent-All India Council Technical Education, (Statutory body of the Government of India) (for short “AICTE), issued employment notification in April 2003 inviting applications for certain categories mentioned therein to be filled on deputation/contract basis from amongst officers working in Autonomous/ Statutory Bodies/Universities and Autonomous Institutions under the Central and the State Government. It is stated that the Assistant Posts were also one of the notified posts in the notification and qualification prescribed to the said post as per the AICTE Rules published in 2001, is a degree from the recognized university and also five years experience in the scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000 or equivalent and having experience in administration and establishment matters. It is also stated that in response to the said notification, the petitioner herein applied to the post of Assistant and he was eligible and qualified to hold the post and the first respondent by his letter dated 14.7.2003 requested the petitioner herein to appear for interview on 6.8.2003 and his services were also engaged by letter dated 27.11.2003 of the first respondent on deputation basis with effect from 7.11.2003. After that it is alleged that respondents issued Circular dated 15.1.2009 under Clause 6 of AICTE (Group AB & C Posts) Recruitment Regulations, 2007 to absorb the persons on permanent basis who are working on deputation. It is stated that the petitioner herein gave willingness for the same and the respondents herein also constituted a Committee and the name of the petitioner was also placed before the Committee. After that the first respondent issued impugned order dated 17.8.2009 directing the petitioner to report at his parent office viz., 4th respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No. 722 of 2009 and the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A observed as under: “In the light of the above discussion, we find that there is nothing contrary to the constitutional or statutory provisions in the impugned order whereby the applicant was relieved at the end of his deputation and directed to report back to his parent office. Since the applicant is not qualified under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant and the Appointing Authority has decided not to relax the educational qualification, the respondents 1 to 3 had no alternative but to relieve the applicant and send him back to his parent organisation. There is nothing patently arbitrary in the decision of the respondents. Finding no merit this OA is dismissed. No costs.” Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that he has completed one year service in AICTE, and as per the circular dated 15.1.2009 issued by the first respondent, he is eligible for permanent absorption. He also contended that the Executive Committee of the Council in its meeting held on 22.10.2008 had approved the regulations regarding permanent absorption of Deputationists in AICTE and his name is shown at serial No. 3, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the maximum period of deputation is five years and the petitioner herein overstayed in the department. He also contended that the proceedings of the committee do not by itself confer any enforceable right and the competent authority is the appointing authority to take decision, therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. It is on record, that the first respondent herein issued a Circular dated 15.1.2009 for permanent absorption in their respective posts against direct recruitment quota, which reads as under: “Sub: Regulations regarding permanent absorption of Deputationists in AICTE. The Clause 6 of these Regulations, the following provision is available: “Absorption of deputationists: Existing incumbents working on deputation basis, who have completed at least one year service in AICTE, shall be given one opportunity for consideration for permanent absorption in their respective posts against direct recruitment quota. The absorption rules shall be notified by the Council separately”. The Executive Committee in its meeting held on 22.10.2008 has approved the Regulations regarding permanent absorption of Deputationists in AICTE. You are hereby advised to give your willingness for consideration for permanent absorption in the Council in the enclosed formant latest by 30.1.2009.” As seen from the brief note dated 3rd March 2009 kept for the members of the Selection Committee constituted for considering the candidature of the candidates for permanent absorption on group B and C posts in AICTE, the name of the petitioner is shown at Serial No. 3 and in the last paragraph of the note, it is stated as under: “Based on the performance appraisal reports of the eligible deputationist and the feedback obtained by the Committee from their immediate controlling officers, the Committee recommends the absorption of following employees against their names” In that list also the name of the petitioner herein was shown at Serial No. 2. The petitioner herein passed only SSC and according to All India Council for Technical Education (Group A, B and C Non- technical Posts) Recruitment Regulations, 1999, a Degree from a recognised University or equivalent was an essential qualification for the post of Assistant. As the petitioner herein has not possessed the qualification of degree from a recognised University, an office order dated 17th August 2009 was issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner herein to report to his parent office. The relevant portion reads as under: “ In pursuance to ANIFPDCL’s letter No. FDC/Perl/PF-156/900, dated 20.02.2009 & letter dated 3.4.2009, Sh. A. Ravindranathan, Assistant (on deputation) is hereby relieved from the service of AICTE today on 17.8.2009 (AN). Sh. A. Ravindranathan is directed to report to his parent office i.e. ANIFPDCL, Port Blair Sh. A Ravindranathan is also directed to hand over charge to the concerned Regional Officer and submit “No Dues Certificate” in the prescribed proforma (enclosed) to enable this office to release his last salary and LPC.” Rule 8 of the Rules provides that if the Appointing Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may relax any of the provisions of these regulations with respect of any class or category of person with the reasons to be recorded in writing. Be that as it may, the petitioner herein does not possess the required qualification of Degree from a recognised university and also he overstayed in the department, Office Order dated 17.8.2009 was issued. Relaxation cannot be sought as a matter of right and it is only an exception to the rule and can be resorted to only if the Appointing Authority thinks fit that it is necessary or expedient to do so. In view of the above, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion and dismissed the O.A observing that the respondents had no alternative but to relieve the petitioner herein and send him back to his parent department. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J DATE: 21.03.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.