Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 148 (JHR)

Bhrigu Ashram Ram v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-17

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Aggrieved of order dated 03.12.2016 by which petitioner''s deputation was revoked and order dated 05.12.2016 by which he was relieved from the post of Assistant Engineer, District Board, Giridih, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice would be to indicate that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Estimating Officer under Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand. This fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. He has claimed that he was holding the post of Assistant Engineer which is a gazetted post under the parent Department. He admits that he was posted under Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand. The respondent nos.1 to 4 in their counteraffidavit have revealed that the petitioner was deputed on the post of Assistant Engineer under National Rural Engineering Programme, Giridih vide Notification dated 29.12.2012. This notification has been brought on record by the petitioner vide Annexure1. This document would also disclose that the petitioner was the Estimating Officer under Rural Works Department, Works Division, Dumka. 3. It is by now wellsettled that a deputationist working under a different department has no unfettered right to insist upon continuation of his deputation in a particular department. No employee can claim a right over a particular post or place of posting. By order dated 03.12.2016 the petitioner has been relieved and repatriated to his parent department. Consequent upon order dated 03.12.2016 the relieving order as contained in Annexure6 has been issued. 4. Plea raised by the petitioner is that on account of his meritorious and excellent work the District Board, Giridih has received Rs.50 Lacs from the Central Government and while so, his transfer (which is an order of revocation of his deputation) by the impugned order dated 03.12.2016 is illegal. The petitioner has also placed reliance on instructions issued vide letter dated 16.08.1996. 5. Whether the services of the petitioner were meritorious or not is the issue pertaining to subjective satisfaction of the employer and the writ Court cannot embark upon an enquiry on the subjective satisfaction of the employer, insofar as, the order of deputation is concerned. Challenge to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to pass order dated 03.12.2016 also must fail for the reason which is duly reflected in Notification dated 29.12.2012. By this notification deputation of the petitioner was only "till further order". Challenge to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to pass order dated 03.12.2016 also must fail for the reason which is duly reflected in Notification dated 29.12.2012. By this notification deputation of the petitioner was only "till further order". In the cases like the present one, no exception can be taken to the decision to send the employee back to the parent department. 6. Bereft of merits, the writ petition is dismissed.