MAT asks state to assign addl charges to eligible joint directors in education dept

The order, delivered on March 27 by a bench comprising chairman Mangesh S Patil and member A M Kulkarni, comes on an application filed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by 10 officers from the state education service (group A, administrative branch).

Pune:

MAT asks state to assign addl charges to eligible joint directors in education dept

In a significant ruling, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) has partly allowed a petition challenging the deputation of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers to key posts in the state education department, while directing the state government to explore assigning additional charge to eligible departmental officers within six weeks.

The order, delivered on March 27 by a bench comprising chairman Mangesh S Patil and member A M Kulkarni, comes on an application filed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by 10 officers from the state education service (group A, administrative branch). The applicants had challenged the deputation of three IAS officers to the posts of director/chairman in the education department, arguing that the Maharashtra Education Service Recruitment Rules, 2018, allow appointments to the post of director of education only through promotion and do not provide for deputation as a mode of recruitment. The officers further contended that deputation violates a general administration department (GAD) resolution dated December 17, 2016 that caps deputation at 15% of the sanctioned posts. With three out of nine posts filled through deputation, the limit had been exceeded. The state government argued that none of the applicants were eligible for promotion as they had not completed the mandatory three years of service in the feeder cadre of joint director. It said that eligible officers are expected to meet this criterion only by 2027. Citing administrative exigencies and multiple vacancies, the government maintained that deputing IAS officers was necessary to ensure continuity in functioning. It also argued that the applicants had no right to claim additional charge of the posts.

The MAT noted that “Recruitment Rules, 2018, prescribe only promotion as the mode of appointment to the post of director of education,” and that “the deputation of IAS officers ‘at first blush’ appears inconsistent with these rules”. However, it also clarified that the IAS officers were only on temporary deputation and would return to their parent cadre after the deputation period. Importantly, the tribunal accepted the government’s contention that no eligible candidates were currently available in the feeder cadre and that administrative exigencies justified the interim arrangement. At the same time, the MAT found fault with the state for failing to assess whether departmental officers could be given additional charge. The bench observed that there was no material on record to show that the government had undertaken any objective evaluation of the competence of joint directors, including the applicants, to handle additional responsibilities. It termed the decision to directly appoint IAS officers without such consideration as potentially ‘arbitrary and capricious’.

The tribunal’s final order stated, “The tribunal has partly allowed the petition. It directs the state government to undertake an exercise within six weeks to evaluate whether officers in the joint director cadre, including the applicants, can be assigned additional charge of director-level posts. If any officer is found suitable, the government shall take immediate steps to assign such charge, including terminating the deputation of the IAS officers, if necessary.”

The ruling strikes a balance between administrative necessity and service rules, allowing temporary deputation of IAS officers to continue while emphasising the need to consider eligible in-house officers.

.