Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 235 (UTT)

YATISH PANT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-05-22

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) The petitioners are employees of Department of Agricultural and Rural Development. They were sent on deputation to the Watershed Management Directorate, Uttarakhand. We have perused the impugned order dated 08.05.2012, which shows that the petitioners were asked to repatriate to their parent department. It is this order, which the petitioners have challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 634 of 2012, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2012 on the ground that the petitioners have no lien on the post on which they were sent on deputation. 2. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed present special appeal. 3. Heard Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention towards the impugned order dated 08.05.2012 by which the deputation period of the petitioner has been withdrawn, whereas many employees of the Agricultural and Rural Department are still working in the Watershed Management Directorate on deputation and they are adopting the pick an choose policy. 5. Be that as it may, even if other persons of Agricultural Department are still working, it does not give any right to the petitioners to continue on the said post. Further, two wrongs do not make a right and in case the wrong has been committed by the respondents, Mandamus cannot be issued to respondents to commit the same wrong again, as has been held in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Directorate of Film Festivals & others Vs Gaurav Ashwin Jain & others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 737. In such circumstances, the only relief for the petitioners, in case the petitioners so chooses, is to challenge such orders or inaction which have been made, but no benefit can be granted to the petitioners, by this Court, as two wrongs do not make a right. 6. It is an admitted fact that the employment with the Watershed Management Department was purely on deputation and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners have no lien on the posts on which they were sent on deputation. We find no anomaly in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed.