M.S. Parihar vs State of M.P.

Heard. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant u/s 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging the order dated 2/9/2013 passed by the learned Writ Court in WP 9055/12 (s).

The appellant was working as an Auditor in the Women and Child Development Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh. An advertisement Annexure P/4 was issued by the MP State Guarantee Council (respondent No. 2) seeking applications from willing candidates for appointment on deputation to the post of Accounts Officer in the Council. It seems that the appellant was selected and was appointed to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer on deputation vide order dated 14/11/2007 (Annexure P/5). In the order of appointment, it was clearly stipulated that the appointment is on deputation and the terms and conditions of the deputation are the same as have been land down by the General Administration Department, from time to time.

It was the case of the appellant that he was working sincerely and to the best of his ability, however, vide orders dated 23/11/2012 and 4/12/2012 he was repatriated back to is parent department namely Women and Child Development Department. Challenging the said repatriation, a writ petition was filed.

Before the learned Writ Court, two grounds were canvassed. First ground canvassed was that the deputation of the petitioner was not a normal deputation as is known in the service jurisprudence. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on deputation to a particular post and, therefore, placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, it was contended that the petitioner having been appointed to particular post, could not be sent back to his parent department as he is appointed on regular basis to the post which cannot be terms as a posting on deputation. The second point canvassed was that if the impugned action was taken because of his unsatisfactory nature of service, the impugned order has adverse effect on the petitioner and, therefore, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing or show cause was given.

Before us also, similar grounds are canvassed.

We have heard the appellant''s counsel at length and also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also gone through the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) and the terms and conditions of the appointment order of the appellant/petitioner. Even if, the appellant/petitioner is shown to be appointed on deputation, it is the case of the appellant that he was not on normal deputation, but his appointment is against a particular post, therefore, he has a right to continue on the post.

We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. In the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant it is held that even in such appointments, if working of the incumbent is found to be unsatisfactory or unsuitable then the employee can be repatriated back to his parent department from where he was appointed on deputation. That apart, in the order of appointment issued to the appellant/petitioner, that is on 14/11/2007 it is clearly stipulated that his appointment is covered by the terms and conditions stipulated in the circulars issued by the General Administration Department in the matter of posting on deputation and the appointment on deputation is for prescribed period of four years. That being so, taking note of all these facts, the learned Writ Court has found that the petitioner has no right to continue on the deputed post and after considering the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and Another, , has refused to interfere in the matter.

Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner was on deputation and the maximum period of his deputation is four years. Even in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra), the Supreme Court has held that on the ground of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance an employee can be repatriated back to his parent department by cancelling his appointment on deputation.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the appellant/petitioner was only on deputation, we see no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court. The order repatriating the appellant/petitioner back to his parent department does not cause any adverse effect on the service benefits of the appellant/petitioner. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.