W.P. No.11759.11
Writ Petition No. 11759 of 2011
22/07/2011
Shri S. K. Patel, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
This petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is directed against the order
dated 27-05-2011 whereby, the petitioners are
repatriated to the parent department i.e. School
Education Department.
The petitioners are the employees of School
Education Department and were sent on deputation
as Block Academic Coordinator, Janpad Shiksha
Kendra, Nagod, district Satna, in the year 2003
while holding the post of Upper Division Teacher.
Subsequent thereafter, the petitioners were
promoted as Head-Master by order dated
08- 02-2008; however, it appears that, they were
continued to discharge the duties as Block
Academic Coordinator, Janpad Shiksha Kendra,
Nagod. Subsequent thereafter, the impugned order
came to be passed on the ground that since Head-
Masters are not eligible to be posted as Block
Academic Coordinator, the petitioners were
repatriated to the parent department.
Trite it is that to be on deputation is not a
right. Equally true it is that the term of deputation
can be curtailed. It has been held so by Division
W.P. No.11759.11
Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar
Nanda v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.A.
No. 802/2007 and other connected matters)
decided on 02-07-2007; that a deputation can be
curtailed at any time as it does not create any
vested right in the deputationist.
The ratio laid down in Anil Kumar Nanda (supra) as
culled out in paragraph 39 thereof is that curtailing the
tenure of deputation and repatriation before completion of
tenure is not bad in law. It was held :
“39. From the aforesaid analysis, it is
clear as noon day that some of the
officers have been working in the
deputed posts from considerable
length of time. True it is, some of
them have been sent recently and
their tenure has been curtailed. The
colossal complaint that is urged is
that the tenure has been curtailed.
The supporting stand of the Municipal
Corporations and the Municipalities
is that if the deputationists are
allowed to be repatriated, there will
be difficulty in the functioning of the
Municipal Corporations and the
Municipalities. The other stand of
the interveners and the Associations
is that by such deputations, their
promotions are affected. We are not
inclined to dwell upon the conception
W.P. No.11759.11
of abridgment of prospects of
promotion because the present spate
of litigations do not involve such a
lis. We are also not inclined to
address ourselves to the stand and
stance put forth by the Municipal
Corporations and the Municipalities
as we are disposed to think, they can
always enter into communication with
the Government about the need
keeping in view the rules in vogue
and solve the problem. There is per
se no justification on their part to
support a particular set of deputed
incumbents on the guise of
conception of necessity. The
necessity can be looked after from
other spectrums by the Municipal
Corporations/Municipalities as well
as by the State Government. We only
observe that the State Government
and the Municipal Corporations and
Municipalities should work in
harmony so that the work of the
Municipal Corporations and the
Municipalities does not suffer. What
we are disposed to think is that the
original employer has a right to pass
an order of repatriation and such
orders have been passed keeping
certain parameters in view. Be that
as it may, no mala fide is perceptible.
W.P. No.11759.11
The employee has no right to be
continued in the said post. What is
canvassed before us is that the need
has to be taken into consideration.
The State Government has urged that
the said aspect has been looked into.
Be it placed on record and there is no
case where absorption has been
made/taken place.”
In view whereof no interference is warranted
with the impugned order of repatriation.
In the result the petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE
SC