Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 51 (CHH)

MANOJ RAJPUT v. STATE OF C. G.

2013-02-05

Prashant Kumar Mishra

body2013
ORDER 1. Both the petitioners have preferred their respective petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to Respondent No.3, Transport Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, to consider and decide their representations in light of the State Government's Circular dated 02.12.1988. 2. Petitioner Manoj Rajput is a Company Commander and is presently posted as RTO In-charge Flying Squad, Durg, on deputation, whereas the petitioner Sunil David is an Inspector in the Police Department posted on Deputation at RTO Check Post Kamharpali. They were sent on deputation by common order dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure P-2). In the order of Deputation no time period is fixed and it has been mentioned therein that the deputationist can be repatriated to their parent department at any point of time. 3. On the strength of Circular dated 02.12.1988 (Annexure P-3) learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the minimum period of deputation is two years which is extendable for a total period of 4 years and they have filed representations for such extension which is pending before the Transport Commissioner, therefore, a direction may be issued for consideration of their representations. 4. It is to be seen that the State Government has not passed any order for repatriation of the petitioners. The representations Annexure P-1 has been submitted by the petitioners on 28.01.2013 and they have rushed to file the present writ petitions on 30.01.2013 i.e., immediately after one day of filing the representation. 5. It is settled law that if an order of deputation is for a fixed period then the employee cannot be repatriated unless there are compelling reasons. Similarly, if the order of deputation does not provide for any fixed period of deputation it is for the concerned authority to pass an order of repatriation as and when necessity arises on the ground of administrative exigency. The petitioners do not have any legal right to continue to serve on deputation in the borrowing department, therefore, no mandamus can be issued to direct either to lending department or borrowing department to continue the petitioners on deputation. 6. In the matter of A.PSRTC and others Vs. The petitioners do not have any legal right to continue to serve on deputation in the borrowing department, therefore, no mandamus can be issued to direct either to lending department or borrowing department to continue the petitioners on deputation. 6. In the matter of A.PSRTC and others Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy and others it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that a direction to consider and decide the representation is issued by the High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review and further that the High Court should not issue directions where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of the public authorities have misused the direction "to consider" issued by the Court and also that existence of a legal right and the corresponding statutory obligation on the authorities is the precondition for exercise of judicial review to issue a direction to consider and decide the representation. 7. As stated earlier, the petitioners have no right to continue on deputation for any fixed period. The decision in this regard is always based on administrative exigency, therefore, in view of the Supreme Court Judgment in APSRTC and others (2006)3 SCC 674 (supra), this Court cannot issue any direction to consider the representations filed by each of the petitioners. 8. For the foregoing reasons, no case for entertaining these writ petitions is made out. They are accordingly dismissed. Petitions Dismissed.