Dharmendra Mathur vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 08.03.2019 (Annex.-15), whereby the petitioner's deputation at RUDSICO, Unit-I, Jodhpur has been put to an end as petitioner has been directed to report at Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.

It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that by order dated 20.06.2018, the petitioner was sent on deputation to RUDSICO, Unit-I, Jodhpur. Suddenly, on 07.09.2018, the Wroking Director, RUDSICO passed an order relieving the petitioner to join back at the parent department, which order was challenged by the petitioner by filing SBCW No. 13983/2018, wherein by order dated 19.09.2018, the order dated 07.09.2018, for lack of jurisdiction, was stayed by this Court. Whereafter, the order dated 07.09.2018 was cancelled by order dated 28.02.2019 (Annex.-10) and the petitioner was permitted to rejoin on 01.03.2019 and simultaneously, Mr. Rajesh Vyas, respondent No.6 was sent on deputation to RUDSICO, Jodhpur from RUDSICO, Jaipur.

As the petitioner was still working on the post of Resident Manager, RUDSICO, Unit-I, Jodhpur and the respondent No.6 was claiming to have joined on the same post, another writ petition being SBCW No. 3568/2019 was filed by the petitioner, wherein status quo was ordered to be maintained on 08.03.2019.

It is submitted that in view of the orders passed by this Court and the fact that the respondents were bent upon transferring the petitioner and appointing Mr. Rajesh Vyas in his place, the order dated 08.03.2019 has been passed, whereby the petitioner's deputation has been put to an end and he has been posted back at Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.

Submissions have been made that the manner, in which the order impugned has been passed and sought to be implemented by the respondents clearly reflect malafides on part of the respondents and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

By way of additional affidavit, certain material has been placed on record and averments made to indicate that the respondents, after the interim order was passed by this Court on 08.03.2019 have acted in hot haste, which clearly establishes their malafides and, therefore also, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

A perusal of the order dated 20.06.2018 (Annex.-1), whereby the petitioner was sent on deputation to RUDSICO, Unit-I, Jodhpur reveals that the same is merely a transfer on deputation and is not appointment by way of deputation at RUDSICO, Unit-I, Jodhpur.

From the material, which has come on record and the fact that the petitioner approached this Court on two occasions earlier by filing writ petitions seeking to resist his repatriation to the parent department and posting of Mr. Rajesh Vyas in place of the petitioner, clearly indicates the intention of the respondents in putting an end to the petitioner's deputation and posting Mr. Rajesh Vyas at RUDSICO, Jodhpur.

It is well within the prerogative of the employer to decide as to which officer is to work on deputation and/or retained in the parent department.

As already noticed once the deputation is by way of transfer only, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue to retain the position on deputation as has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India & Anr. : (2012) 7 SCC 757.

In view of the above fact situation insofar as the claim made by the petitioner questioning the validity of order dated 08.03.2019 is concerned, the petitioner apparently has no legal right to continue to retain the position on deputation.

So far as the allegations made pertaining to the malafides of the respondents in passing the order on 08.03.2019, after the interim order was passed by this Court, ordering for maintenance of status quo when Mr. Rajesh Vyas sought to take charge on a post, which was held by the petitioner is concerned, by producing material by way of additional affidavit, though the petitioner has sought to question the promptness, with which the respondents have acted, the same by itself cannot vitiate the order impugned and the petitioner by projecting the said aspect cannot seek any relief based on that only.

In view of the above discussion, as the petitioner has failed to establish any right to continue to remain on deputation, no interference is called for in the order dated 08.03.2019 (Annex.-15).

Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.