Dismissed¶77

Sri Sanjay P R v. Managing Director

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2025WA/854/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Secondment scheme; deputation; no-objection certificate caveat; exigencies of service; administrative convenience; lien; relieving employee for outside posting; BRBNMPL; Aeronautical Development Agency; Joint Director (Materials Management); writ appeal dismissed; Karnataka High Court Act Section 4; WP 11440/2025; order dated 02.05.2025; letter dated 07.04.2025; communication dated 08.10.2024.

What did the court decide?

Since the NOC was granted with the caveat that release would depend primarily upon the exigency of service and administrative convenience, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with. ¶72

Sri Sanjay P R Vs Managing Director — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to be relieved to join the place of posting?

¶55

Court's answer

¶72

Ratio / Principle

The proforma at page No.41 of the paper book stipulated that the grant of NOC by the respondent-Company would not ipso facto mean that the appellant would be relieved on being selected in respondent No.4; relief remained subject to exigency of service.

¶59

Key takeaways

The communication dated 08.10.2024 of the respondent-Company made clear that the grant of permission to apply was not to be construed as permission to take up the job, and that release would depend primarily upon the exigencies of services/administrative convenience.ratio¶68
The learned Single Judge, in paragraph No.10 of the impugned order, secured the appellant's interest by providing that if the post of Joint Director (Materials Management) in respondent No.4 remains vacant as on the date of review of the secondment scheme by respondents Nos.1 to 3, they shall take immediate steps to relieve the appellant while maintaining his lien in his current position.ratio¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (S-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench (V Kameswar Rao, Acting Chief Justice, author; C M Joshi, Judge), decided 15.07.2025 — appeal under S. 4, Karnataka High Court Act, against Single Judge order dated 02.05.2025 in WP No.11440/2025. An employee of BRBNMPL, selected as Joint Director (Materials Management) at Aeronautical Development Agency on deputation, was refused relief by his employer. The NOC dated 08.10.2024 and the application proforma stipulated that grant of NOC did not ipso facto entitle relief; release was subject to exigencies of service/administrative convenience. By order/letter dated 07.04.2025 the competent authority declined relief and temporarily held the secondment scheme, promising review. The Single Judge disposed of the petition directing that on review the petitioner's case be taken up first for deputational posts, and that if the ADA post remained vacant he be relieved with lien maintained. The Division Bench held that, given the NOC caveat, the Single Judge's order could not be interfered with; the appeal was dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. SANJAY P. R. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE A. JANARDHANAN NAIR, EMPLOYEE NO:20318, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(PP), BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED (BRBNMPL), NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 003, RESIDING AT NO.94, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, 12^TH CROSS, GOKULAM 2^ND STAGE, MYSURU – 570 002. …APPELLANT

¶14

(BY MR. KULKARNI P.A., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

MANAGING DIRECTOR BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK, NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED, (WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA), REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.3 AND 4, 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025

HC-KAR

BANNERGHATTA ROAD,

B.T.M. LAYOUT,

BENGALURU – 560 029,

CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER CORPORATE OFFICE, BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED, NO. 3 AND 4, 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, B.T.M. LAYOUT, BENGALURU: 560 029,

¶23

GENERAL MANAGER BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK, NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED, NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU: 570 003,

¶24

AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, (MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA) PB NO. 1718, VIMANAPURA POST, BENGALURU: 560 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN AND HR).

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY MR. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3; MR. JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP 11440/2025 (S-RES) AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶34

The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.11440/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition by stating in paragraphs No.9 and 10 as under:

¶35

“9. In that view of the matter, the writ

¶36

petition stands disposed off on the following terms:

¶37

(i) The relief sought for in the writ petition is not granted. However, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall ensure that soon after they review the secondment scheme and if it provides for deputation to any other organization, the first case that they shall take up for deputing any of its employees, to any deputational posts under the Central Government or Public Sector undertakings, shall be the case of the petitioner. This shall be complied strictly without any exception.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

10. It is needless to mention that if the post of Joint Director (Materials management) in the respondent No.4 remains vacant as on the date of review of secondment scheme by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, then they shall take immediate steps to relieve the petitioner by maintaining his lien in his current position.”

¶41

The brief facts to be noted are, pursuant to the advertisement published by respondent No.4 to fill various posts, the appellant desirous for applying for one post had made a request to the Controlling Authority to grant permission to apply to the post of Joint Director. A no-objection certificate (‘NOC’ for short) was issued to the appellant to apply for the post of Joint Director on deputation basis. Respondent No.4 informed the Controlling Authority about the selection of the appellant to the post of Joint Director (Materials Management) on deputation basis. The appellant accordingly made a representation and requested the Controlling Authority to relieve him from Mysuru on or before 31.03.2025 to take up the assignment on deputation and to hold the lien on

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

his post. The appellant was informed by his Controlling Authority that the Corporate Office, Bengaluru had refused to accept his request to relieve him to join the post at respondent No.4. It was this action, which was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge.

¶45

The case of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that, the relieving of the appellant was depending upon the exigencies of service/administrative convenience in the respondents’ Company. Thus according to them, deputation is not a matter of right, but was at the sole discretion of the Controlling Authority and such discretion should be exercised depending upon the exigencies.

¶46

The learned Single Judge has, also in paragraphs No.7 and 8, stated as under:

¶47

“7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, benefit of the secondment scheme could not be claimed as a matter of right by the employees and approval of

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

such cases would depend upon the availability of man power and would solely be at the discretion of the respondents. This fact was made known to the petitioner even while no objection certificate was given to the petitioner, while seeking employment on deputation as Joint Director (Materials Management) at the respondent No.4. It is also relevant to note that when the application of the petitioner was forwarded by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the respondent No.4, it was specifically mentioned "his relieving under secondment scheme of the company for a period not exceeding three years, is subject to approval of competent authority and would depend primarily upon the exigencies of service/administration convenience." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a certificate in the form which is prescribed in Annexure IV to the secondment scheme, shows that the applicant if selected would be relieved immediately and that therefore, the secondment scheme will have to be examined in the context of certificate forwarded by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to respondent No.4, does not appeal to mind of this Court as relieving the petitioner was subject to approval of competent authority and the competent authority in terms of the order dated 07.04.2025 did not find it feasible to accede to the same, due to administrative exigencies.

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

8. This Court cannot go into the question of what the administrative exigencies were, as it is the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who have to finally decide whether the services of the petitioner could be lent to the respondent No.4. The petitioner having availed employment in the respondent Nos.1 to 3, cannot question the decision of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to relieve him. Be that as it may, since it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have now taken a policy decision in terms of their letter dated 07.04.2025 to temporarily hold the secondment scheme with immediate effect and that the same would be reviewed in due course. The respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner, once they review the secondment scheme.”

¶55

The only issue which falls for consideration is, whether the appellant is entitled to be relieved to join the place of posting?

¶56

There is no dispute that the appellant had applied for the post in question under the secondment scheme of the respondent. The proforma at page No.41 of the paper book clearly stipulates that, the grant of

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

NOC by the respondent-Company would not ipsofacto mean that the appellant shall be relieved on being selected in respondent No.4. The same is subject to exigency of service. In fact we find that, the communication dated 08.10.2024 of the respondentCompany clearly stated as under:

¶60

“xx xx xx xx

¶61

Dear Sir,

¶62

Permission to seek outside employment

¶63

With reference to your letter dated October 03, 2024, we advise that the Company has no objection to your applying for the post of Joint Director on Deputation basis at Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Bengaluru.

¶64

2. You may please note that the grant of permission should not be construed as permission to take up the job for which a separate application to hold lien under Secondment Scheme should be submitted at the appropriate time (i.e., after selection / receipt of appointment letter) and your

¶65

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

release would depend primarily upon the exigencies of services / administrative convenience.

¶69

3. You should note to give due notice in case you intend resigning from the Company's service.

¶70

xx xx xx xx”

¶71

The NOC having been granted with a caveat that

¶72

the grant of NOC must not be construed as a permission to take up the job for which a separate application to hold lien under secondment scheme and the release would depend primarily upon the exigency of service and administrative convenience, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with. In fact the learned Single Judge has also in paragraph No.10, secured the interest of the appellant to go on deputation in the eventuality the post remains vacant as on the date

¶73

of review of secondment scheme by respondents No.1 to 3, when they shall take immediate steps to relieve the appellant by maintaining his lien in his current position.

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

The appeal being without merit, is dismissed .

¶78

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

¶79

disposed of.

¶80

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶81

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶82

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 02.05.2025 of the learned Single Judge in WP No.11440/2025 disposing of the writ petition: relief sought not granted, but respondents Nos.1 to 3 directed that on review of the secondment scheme, if it provides for deputation, the petitioner's case be taken up first for deputational posts under the Central Government or PSUs; and if the post of Joint Director (Materials Management) in respondent No.4 remains vacant as on the date of review, to take immediate steps to relieve the petitioner while maintaining his lien.¶34
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 02.05.2025
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to advertisement by respondent No.4, the appellant sought permission to apply for the post of Joint Director; a no-objection certificate was issued to apply on deputation basis; respondent No.4 informed the Controlling Authority of the appellant's selection as Joint Director (Materials Management); the appellant requested relief from Mysuru on or before 31.03.2025 holding lien on his post.¶41
Prior proceeding
The Controlling Authority informed the appellant that the Corporate Office, Bengaluru had refused to accept his request to relieve him to join respondent No.4; this action was challenged before the learned Single Judge in WP No.11440/2025.¶44
Prior proceeding
By communication dated 08.10.2024 the respondent-Company granted permission to seek outside employment with the caveat that grant of permission was not permission to take up the job, a separate application under the Secondment Scheme was required, and release would depend primarily upon exigencies of services/administrative convenience.¶59
Prior proceeding
The competent authority, in terms of its order dated 07.04.2025, did not find it feasible to accede to relieving the appellant due to administrative exigencies.¶51
Prior proceeding
Respondents Nos.1 to 3 took a policy decision in terms of their letter dated 07.04.2025 to temporarily hold the secondment scheme with immediate effect, to be reviewed in due course.¶54

Sri Sanjay P R v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sanjay P R v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.H.Ramachandrappa Vs Mr.Sudarshan Yadav

Sri Venkata Durga Prasad Kunchala Vs Sri Umashankar S R, I.A.S

Mr.J. Sadik Basha Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghava K. Kalyanaraman Vs Netra Srikanth

Sri Shivakumar S T Vs Sri.Randeep.D