Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 592 (MP)

Rajaram v. State of M. P.

2010-05-21

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2010
ORDER 1. With consent heard finally. 2. Petitioner is working on the post of Sub Divisional Forest Officer in the Forest Department of the State Government. He has been sent on deputation from the post of SDO Forest, Sendhwa to Rajya Laghu Vanopaj Sangh as Deputy Manager vide order dated 10.9.2009 (Annexure P-1). Through the same order, the private respondent No.4 has been posted in place of the petitioner by amending his earlier transfer order. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. According to the petitioner he has been sent on deputation to accommodate the 4th respondent. He submits that he had joined at Sendhwa only on 20.8.2008 (Annexure P-2) and as such before completion of normal tenure of posting the impugned order could not have been issued. He further submits that the impugned order of deputation being passed without seeking his consent, the same is liable to be quashed. 4. The respondents have filed reply and have stated that M.P. Laghu Vanopaj Sangh is a wing of Forest Department of the State Government and is controlled by the Forest Department of the State Government. It is stated that the petitioner's department has not been changed and he will remain under the Forest Department. In the circumstances the case of the respondents is that for posting of the petitioner in M.P. Laghu Vanopaj Sangh no consent is required as the M.P. Laghu Vanopaj Sangh is wholly under the administrative control of the Forest Department of the State Government. It has been stated that in view of Fundamental Rule 110 a Government Servant can be sent to the service of a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned and controlled by the Government without seeking his consent. 5. As regard petitioner's contention that he had joined at Sendhwa only on 20.8.2008 and as such he could not have been shifted from Sendhwa prior to completion of normal tenure of posting at one place, it has been stated that prior to his promotion order dated 20.8.2008 the petitioner was posted at Sendhwa itself right from the year 2006 and therefore, it cannot be said that he has not completed normal tenure of posting at Sendhwa. The respondent have also denied the petitioner's contention that in order to accommodate the 4th respondent he has been shifted. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the annexures. 7. The respondent have also denied the petitioner's contention that in order to accommodate the 4th respondent he has been shifted. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the annexures. 7. True it is that there cannot be a deputation without the consent of the person deputed. The consent of the lending authority, borrowing authority and the employee concerned is necessary before passing the order of deputation. The term "deputation" has been explained by Supreme Court by observing that deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation, the employee has to come back to his parent depm1ment to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the recruitment rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority which controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. It has been further observed that the deputation means assignment of an employee of one department/ cadre/organisation to another depat1menllcadre/organisation [See State a/Punjab v. Inder Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 372 and Umapati Choudhari v. State of Bihar, (1999) 4 SCC 659 ]. In the present case, the petitioner has been posted in the M.P. Laghu Vanopaj Sangh which is under the control of the Forest Depeat1ment of the State Government. Fundamental Rule 110 empowers the State Government to transfer service of government servant to a body incorporated or not which is wholly or substantially owned and controlled by the Government without seeking his consent. The petitioner's service was and still is under the control of the Forest Department. In the circumstances for passing of the impugned order, the petitioner's consent was not at all necessary. Merely because the fourth respondents has been posted in place of the petitioner, it cannot be said that he has been accommodated more pm1icularly when the petitioner has remained posted at Sendhwa since 2006 he cannot make any grievance if the fourth respondent has been posted at his place by modifying his earlier posting order. 8. Accordingly, I find no merit in the petition. In the circumstances, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.