Virendra Singh Tomar vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 2.9.2013, whereby his deputation order is cancelled and he is repatriated to his original post by Collector/Mission Director. Shri RBS Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced singular contention. It is contended by placing reliance on Annexure P/2- "Financial and Administrative Regulations of the Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission", that the District Appointment Committee is empowered to select and appoint the persons on deputation. The constitution of District Appointment Committee is mentioned in the said scheme. The petitioner was selected for deputation vide Annexure P-3. The appointment was made pursuant to his selection by District Appointment Committee. It is contended that before passing impugned order, Annexure P-1, approval of said committee is not taken.

Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that in Writ Petition No. 4922/2013 the Writ Court did not interfere against a suspension order. However, on a specific query from the Bench, learned Deputy Government Advocate is unable to show whether impugned order is passed after taking approval from the said committee, by which the petitioner was appointed.

Shri RBS Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the judgment passed in WP No. 4922/2013 (Annexure R-1) is already set aside by the Division Bench. This statement is not refuted by Smt. Pachauri. Shri Tomar further submits that this Court did not entertain a petition (WP No. 5592/2012). Against that, a writ appeal was filed. This Court did not entertain the petition on the ground that deputationist has no right. The Division Bench by order dated 6.9.2012 granted interim order but ultimately dismissed the writ appeal when it was shown that there is an approval by competent committee.

In view of aforesaid rival submissions, in the considered opinion of this Court, the argument advanced by the petitioner has substantial force. If the selection and appointment was made by the District Appointment Committee, the said committee alone was competent to give approval for petitioner''s cancellation of deputation. In absence thereof, the order passed by the Collector is without authority of law. In this view of the matter, since power of appointment was vested with District Appointment Committee, the power to annul such appointment on deputation can also be exercised by the said committee. In absence of showing any other enabling provision, by which the Collector/Mission Director can exercise such power, I am unable to approve the order, Annexure P-1. Resultantly, the order dated 2.9.2013, Annexure P-1, is set aside. Petition is allowed. It is made clear that this order is passed only on the ground of competence of Collector and it will be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs.