Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 946 (JHR)

Dinesh Prasad Shukla v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-14

R.R.PRASAD

body2008
Order The petitioners, Sub-Inspectors of Police, were deputed to the Transport Department from their Parent Home Department. On being deputed, petitioner no. 1 has been working in the Transport Department since December, 2002, whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have been working in the said Department from February, 2004. However, under order dated 20.11.2007 issued by the respondent no.4-Secretary, Department of Transport, Jharkhand, Ranchi, as contained in Annexure-4, returned the services of the petitioners to the Parent Home Department and previous to that, the Director General of Police vide Memo No. 380 dated 19.2.2007 (Annexure-1) deputed respondent nos. 6 to 8 to the Transport Department and thereupon under office order. No. 25 dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure-5) issued by Secretary, Department of Transport, Jharkhand, Ranchi posted respondent nos. 6 to 8 in the Transport Department as Enforcement Officers in the district of Hazaribagh, Dhanbad and Koderma respectively. 2. Being aggrieved with the said order including the order under which these petitioners were repatriated to the Home Department, they preferred this writ application assailing the said orders on the grounds that the order under which the petitioners' services were repatriated are tainted with mala fide, as the said order has been passed on the recommendation of the Minister, Transport, Jharkhand, Ranchi and that said order is arbitrary, as the persons, who were deputed earlier to the petitioners and working from before, have been left out, whereas the petitioners were chosen for repatriation to the Parent Department only to accommodate respondent nos. 6 to 8 and also on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed against the settled norms and also against the Government policy. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that while eight persons including the petitioners were working in the Transport Department as Enforcement Sub-Inspectors on deputation, respondent nos. 6 to 8 were deputed to the Transport Department under order dated 19.2.2007, though the posts were not vacant and as such they could not take charge and in order to get over this difficulty, the petitioners were chosen for repatriation to the Parent Department at the instance of Minister to accommodate those respondents though certain other persons were working on deputation from before, which would be evident from the documents annexed with this writ application and as such the impugned orders are not only tainted with mala fide but it also smacks arbitrariness. 4. 4. Learned counsel further submits that under the policy of the Government. Parent Department is required to get a panel prepared for the purpose of deputation and whenever the Requisitioning Department requisitioned the survives of a person from the Parent Department, the person impanelled in the panel should have been sent for deputation, but this policy has not been adhered to in case of respondents and on that account also, the order under which they were deputed to the Transport Department is fit to be set aside. 5. At the outset, it be stated that no right vests with a deputee to continue deputation without the consent of the Department. It has been well settled that the basic principles underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his Parent Department to serve his substantive post therein at the instance of either of the Department and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation. 6. In this context, I would be referring a Circular, as contained in Memo No. 590 dated 15.6.2001, (Annexure-3) of I.A. No. 674 of 2008 issued by the then Transport Commissioner with respect to deputation of A.S.I. in the Transport Department stipulating therein that the period of a deputee would be for two years and if he renders excellent service then period of deputation can be extended for further two years. So far the petitioners are concerned, all of them have completed more than four years in the Transport Department and still putting claim of continuation on the said posts which are quite contrary to the stipulation made in the said letter, though the petitioners have never got a vested right on those posts. 7. Other submission is that the petitioners' repatriation have been made at the instance of the Minister, which fact gets established by several documents annexed with the writ application and also the Interlocutory Application and as such order impugned is tainted with mala fide but this submission seems to be devoid of any substance. 8. In this respect, it be noticed that in the year 2006, the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand vide its Memo No. 148 dated 21.1.2006 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 8. In this respect, it be noticed that in the year 2006, the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand vide its Memo No. 148 dated 21.1.2006 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 to 7) asked the Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand to return the services of all the police personnel deputed in the Transport Department but when the Transport Department did not make any response, reminders (Annexure-B series) were given but in spite of that, when the services of those persons including the petitioners were not repatriated to the Home Department, they were suspended vide Memo No. 1289/P dated 27.7.2006 (Annexure-6) but the suspension of those persons including the petitioners were revoked by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi at the instance of the same Minister who now is being alleged to be instrumental in getting the petitioners repatriated to the Parent Department and as such any allegation of mala fide does not cut any ice. 9. Further, I do find that pursuant to request made by the Parent Department, the petitioners services were repatriated to the Parent Department due to administrative reason and on the other hand, respondent nos. 6 to 8 were deputed to Transport Department under order dated 19.2.2007 and subsequently under Memo No. 781 dated 23.11.2007, respondent nos. 6 to 8 were posted at different places as Enforcement Officers in the Transport Department and the said decision got approval of the Establishment Committee which is evident from the Minutes of Establishment Committee, as contained in Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners. 10. It be further stated that since the deputee does not have any right to continue under deputation any submission that the person whose period of deputation was longer than the petitioners should have been chosen for repatriation does not have any substance and thus it appears that the impugned orders never suffer on the ground of in competency, mala fide or violation of the rules and, therefore, the order impugned cannot be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed.