Dr. P. Revathi Reddy v. National Council For Teacher Education & ANR

$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7402/2016, CM APPLs. 30392/2016 and 30393/2016 DR. P. REVATHI REDDY ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Amitesh Kumar, Adv.

versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Ms. Priti, Adv. for UOI/respondent.

Mr. Anil Soni, Adv. for R-1/ NCTE

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R

% 22.08.2016 Notice. Mr. Anil Soni, the learned Standing Counsel for R-1 and Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla for Union of India accept notice for the respondents.

At request of the learned counsel for the parties the petition may be taken up for final disposal.

This writ petition seeks setting aside of the impugned order bearing No.1-8/2013/NCTE/Estt. dated 16.08.2016 issued by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) - respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner has been pre-maturely repatriated to her parent cadre with immediate effect. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Secretary on deputation basis in the NCTE and has been posted as Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, NCTE Bangalore. Now she is sought to be reverted back to her

parent cadre in Hyderabad, Telengana.

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that as per clause 9 of OM No. 6/8/2009-Estt. (Pay II) of Department of Personnel & Training dated 17th June, 2010 normally when an employee is appointed on deputation/foreign service, his/her services are placed at the disposal of the parent Ministry/ Department at the end of the tenure. However, as and when a situation arises for premature reversion to the parent cadre of the deputationist, his services could be so returned after giving an advance notice of at least three months to the lending Ministry/ Department and the employee concerned. He submits that insofar as the Rule provides that a three months‟ notice period is essential and the reversion order which has been passed in breach of the mandatory rule, is erroneous and needs to be stayed.

Mr. Anil Soni, the learned Standing Counsel for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi submits that the said Rule is to be observed "normally", however, keeping in view the fact that (i) two CBI inquiries have been initiated against the petitioner; (ii) an FIR has been registered against the petitioner on 24th June, 2016; and (iii) some other inquiries are underway which may implicate the petitioner, the competent authority was compelled to take steps against the petitioner.

The Court is of the view that whatever be the nature of inquiries, insofar as the petitioner is not likely to obstruct the process of such inquiries or exercise or use her position to influence such inquiries, there is no reason to carve out the exemption as sought under Rule 9 of the aforesaid OM. Hence the impugned order is set aside. In the circumstances, it will be open for the respondent to depute the petitioner to any other regional office

located in Jaipur, Bhopal or Bhubaneshwar or at Delhi for her to exhaust the remaining period of her tenure which ends on 30.10.2016. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the NCTE by Friday 26th August, 2016.

The petition is disposed off in the above terms. Order dasti, under the signature of the Court Master. NAJMI WAZIRI, J AUGUST 22, 2016/acm