Jaiprakash Choubey vs State of C.G. and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 13-7-2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Assistant Project Co-ordinator, Rashtriya Gramin Shiksha Mission (for short "RGSM"), Ambikapur, Sarguja to Government High School Kunni, Block Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, on the post of Principal. The petitioner seeks quashment of the aforesaid order passed in respect of himself and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, herein. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer in the Department of School Education vide order dated 21-3-1989. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School. The post of Principal is equivalent to the post of District Project Co-ordinator of RGSM. By order dated 22-9-2011 (Annexure P-4); the petitioner was sent on deputation to RGSM as Assistant Project Co-ordinator. The petitioner joined on the said post and even has been receiving the deputation allowance, salary etc. from RGSM. According to the petitioner, before completion of period of two years, no employee can be repatriated to their parent department without obtaining consent of the concerned employee. In spite of the said fact, within a period of 10 months by order dated 13-7-2012, the petitioner has been transferred by the Department of School Education. The services of the petitioner has not been repatriated from RGSM. Hence, this petition.

Shri Paranjape, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order has been passed with malafide intention only to accommodate the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein and without assigning any reason the impugned order has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner. By order dated 22-9-2011, the petitioner has been sent on deputation to RGSM, however, before completion of two years, the petitioner has been transferred by the Department of School Education in spite of fact that there is no order of repatriation in respect of the; petitioner from RGSM. Shri Paranjape would further submit that according to the circular dated 2-12-1988 issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh, no employee can be repatriated to his parent department before completion of two years without his consent. In support of his contention, Shri Paranjape, placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Inder Singh and Others, and Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and Another, and the decision of this Court in Radhe Lal Nag Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and others, W.P. (S) No. 3997 of 2007, decided on 27-3-2008.

On the other hand, Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and Shri Kachhawaha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, would submit that vide order dated 11-11-2005 issued by the State Project Office, RGSM, the services of the petitioner has been taken on deputation in the establishment of RGSM and the petitioner was posted as Assistant Project Co-ordinator RGSM. Pursuant to the order dated 11-11-2005, the petitioner had joined his services as Assistant Project Co-ordinator in RGSM on 25-11-2005. In the meantime, the petitioner has been promoted from the post of Lecturer to the post of Principal vide order dated 22-9-2011 passed by the Department of School Education and the petitioner continued to be working as Assistant Project Coordinator, RGSM. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner joined in the office of the District Mission Director, RGSM. Subsequently, by the impugned order, the petitioner has been relieved for his new place of posting, i.e., Principal, Government High School, Kunni, Block Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, but the petitioner refused to take the relieving order. Thus, the impugned order is just, proper and legal and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.

Initially, the petitioner was sent on deputation by order dated 11-11-2005 (Annexure R-2/1), while he was working as Lecturer in DIET, Ambikapur, Sarguja, on the post of Assistant Project Co-ordinator (Planning & Budget), RGSM, Sarguja. The petitioner has continued in the same capacity after joining the post of deputation. Thereafter, by order dated 22-9-2011 (Annexure P-4) the petitioner was promoted on the post of Principal, Higher Secondary School and posted as Assistant Project Co-ordinator, RGSM, Ambikapur. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 13-7-2012 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was transferred by the School Education Department, to be posted as Principal, Government High School, Kunni, Block Lakhanpur, District Sarguja.

Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had not completed two years of years on deputation and, as such, the ratio laid down by this Court in Radhe Lal Nag (supra), would squarely be applicable cannot be countenanced. The fact remains that after joining initially on 11-11-2005, the petitioner continued on deputation. Thus, after completion of two years at any time, the petitioner could have been recalled by the parent department and posted many place. It is relevant to mention that the order of deputation does not specify any period of deputation and as such, two years period would be relevant in view of the circular dated 2-12-1988.

In Radhe Lal Nag (supra), reliance of the circular dated 2-12-1988, which had been adapted/by the State of Chhattisgarh, it is made clear that after completion of two years, the employee has no right to continue on the deputation post.

In Azad Mohammad Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, 2008 (2) BLJ 47, it has clearly been held by this Court that continuation of employees or repatriation on completion of deputation period does not depend on their consent. Thus, no consent was necessary after completion of two years on deputation.

In Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , the Supreme Court observed that deputation does not result into recruitment, as no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as the person continues to be a member of the parent service. Thus, the petitioner herein cannot claim continuation on deputation after completion of 2 years period, as aforestated.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Umapati Choudhary (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in that case, the question was repatriation of a deputationist after his permanent absorption. The decision of the Supreme Court in Inder Singh (supra), is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. As a sequel, the writ petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.