Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1549 (MP)

Akhilesh Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2014-11-27

RAJENDRA MENON, VANDANA KASREKAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is made to an order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 14890/2014 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been rejected. 2. The Writ Court has found that the petitioner is on deputation. A deputationist does not have any right to continue on the deputed post and therefore, on such consideration the order of repatriation has been upheld and the petition dismissed. 3. Facts goes to indicate that the appellant was appointed as a Medical Officer in the year 1978 under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. He was posted in a remote area in the District of Bastar, now in the State of Chhatisgarh. Appellant was promoted as Medical Specialist in the year 2000 by his parent department namely, the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. However vide an order dated 5.6.2000 the State Government sent the appellant on deputation to the Medical Education Department and on such deputation he was posted in the Government Medical College Hospital at Rewa. Appellant performed various duties in the Medical College at Rewa and while so working vide order dated 4.9.2014 the service of the appellant was repatriated to his parent department and he was posted in Civil Hospital, Teonthar, District Rewa. Challenging his repatriation, the writ petition was filed. It was the case of the appellant that Withdrawal of the appellant from deputation is illegal and certain administrative processes contemplated was said to be violated in the matter. That apart, it was also stated that along with the appellant or even prior to that, many employees identically situated have been sent on deputation to the Medical Education Department, they are still continuing but it is only the appellant and some other persons who have been singled out to be repatriated. Accordingly, making a case of discrimination on the said ground petition was filed. The learned Writ Court went into all these aspects in detail and after taking note of various judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru University Vs. Dr. K.S. Jaswatkar and others - AIR 1989 SC 1577 ; State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others - (1997) 8 SCC 372 ; Kunal Nanda Vs. The learned Writ Court went into all these aspects in detail and after taking note of various judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru University Vs. Dr. K.S. Jaswatkar and others - AIR 1989 SC 1577 ; State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others - (1997) 8 SCC 372 ; Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and another - : (2000)5 SCC 362 ; Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Vs. P.K. Bhatnagar and others - (2007)14 SCC 498 and State of Bihar and another Vs. Sunny Prakash and others - (2013)3 SCC 559 , came to the conclusion that a deputationist does not have any right to continue on the deputed post. He can be repatriated back to his parent department and it was held that no legally enforceable right accrues to the deputationist to continue on the deputed post. After having held so, the learned Court found that the petitioner has been rightly repatriated and even if there is some procedural error in the matter, once it is found that he is not entitled for continue on the deputed post learned Writ Court refused to interfere into the matter. 4. It was stated by learned counsel for the State that many employees of the Health Department are working on deputation and therefore, a policy decision has been taken by the State Government to repatriate all such officers as their services are required in various rural areas where there is insufficiency of expert and specialist, Doctors. It is stated that decision was taken on such account and the appellant cannot have any grievance. 5. We have considered the submissions made and the reasons indicated by the Writ Court in this regard and we see no error in the order passed. Admittedly, the appellant is an employee of Health and Family Welfare Department, he was sent on deputation to the Medical Education Department and if he is repatriated back to his parent department, no error has been committed by the State Government as already held by the learned Writ Court, appellant does not have any legal right to continue on the deputed post and if that be the legal position, the repatriation cannot be faulted with. 6. 6. As far as procedural irregularity is concerned, once it is found that the appellant does not have any legal right to continue on the deputation, even if there are some procedural error, the same cannot be a ground for interference. Once it is held that appellant has continued on a deputed post for more than 10 years and now looking to the administrative exigency he is being called back by his parent department. 7. As far as the ground of discrimination is concerned, once the appellant is found to be not having any legal right, negative equality cannot be applied for granting benefit. If the appellant feels that he has been discriminated, he may challenge the continuation of some employees by raising objection before the State Government and it would be for the State Government to consider all these objections and take a decision in the matter but on such consideration, once we find that appellant has no right to continue on deputation, no interference can be made. 8. Accordingly, finding no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court, this appeal is dismissed.