Dr. Prasanna Patkar vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.7.2012 whereby he is repatriated to his parent department. The petitioner was brought on deputation from his parent department, i.e., Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakut Gramoday Vishwavidyalaya by order dated 4.8.2011. Shri Mahesh Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention. He submits that the parent department relieved the petitioner for one year for deputation as per order dated 9.8.2011 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner was relieved but was not permitted to assume the charge as Principal, Lalit Kala Mahavidyalaya, Gwalior. The petitioner filed W.P.No. 5784/2011 before this Court and pursuant to order of this Court dated 7.9.2011, the petitioner was permitted to assume the charge only in September, 2011. Learned counsel submits that one year of deputation as per order, Annexure P/4, has to be counted from the date he assumed the charge, i.e., September, 2011. Shri Mahesh Goyal submits that the petitioner has not completed one year and he has been repatriated.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

The deputation order dated 4.8.2011 only provides that the petitioner is brought on deputation from the date of assuming the charge till further orders on temporary basis. There is no tenure prescribed in the order, Annexure P/2. This is settled in law that the deputationist has no legal right to continue on deputation. The borrowing or lending department in administrative exigencies can seek repatriation. In certain cases where tenure is prescribed in the deputation order itself, on limited grounds interference can be made. However, in the present case, at the cost of repetition, it is noticed that no tenure is prescribed. The tenure prescribed in the order dated 9.8.2011 does not have any binding force on the borrowing department.

The Supreme Court in Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and Another, , held as under:

A deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department, at the instance of either borrowing department or parent department.

On the basis of aforesaid, I am unable to hold that any legal, vested, statutory or constitutional right of the petitioner has been infringed. Personal inconvenience or education of children etc. is no ground for interference by the writ Court. Accordingly, interference is declined. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to avail the departmental remedy and pursue his representation.

With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.