Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1293 (RAJ)

Indra Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-01

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dt. 6.3.2019 (Annex. 14), whereby, the services of the petitioner, who was working on deputation with the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department ('the borrowing department') have been repatriated back to the Higher Education Department ('the parent department'). 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement dt. 30/1/15 for deputation on ad hoc basis, applications were invited for the post of Vikas Adhikari. The petitioner being eligible applied for the same and vide Annex. 2 the petitioner was selected through interview, by Annex. 4 No Objection' was accorded for deputation of the petitioner by the parent department and he was relieved on 7/9/15. The petitioner joined on the deputation post on 8/9/15, he was posted as Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Siwana on 4.11.2015, where he joined on 5.11.2015. He continued on deputation with the borrowing department, when pursuant to communication dt. 20.6.2015 from the parent department requiring to relieve the petitioner from the deputation post and to rejoin at the parent department, the Joint Secretary Panchayati. Raj Department indicated that it was not possible to relieve the petitioner: Again on 15.12.2017 the petitioner was required by the parent department to get himself relieved from the deputation post and join at the parent department. 3. By order dt. 13.2.2019, the petitioner was placed Awaiting Posting Order and by order dt. 25.2.2019, he was posted at Bichhiwada (Dungarpur); where the petitioner joined on 1.3.2019, however, by impugned order dt. 6.3.2019 the deputation of the petitioner was put to an end by the borrowing department and he was directed to report to the parent department. 4. It is, thereafter, indicated that the petitioner approached the Minister of the parent department for extension of his deputation, when the Minister by hi; communication Annex. 16 sent to the Minister of borrowing department requested for withdrawing the order dt. 6/3/19. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in putting an end-to the petitioner's deputation is illegal inasmuch as once by order dt. 25/2/19 (Annex. 2), he was accorded posting at Bichhiwada (Dungarpur), where, he had joined, the same clearly indicated the requirement of petitioner's service in the department; the action of the respondents in ending the deputation cannot be justified. 6. 25/2/19 (Annex. 2), he was accorded posting at Bichhiwada (Dungarpur), where, he had joined, the same clearly indicated the requirement of petitioner's service in the department; the action of the respondents in ending the deputation cannot be justified. 6. Further submissions have been made that the petitioner was appointed or deputation and was not transferred on deputation and, therefore, the said deputation could not be put to an end without, their being unsuitability of the petitioner or unsatisfactory performance on his part and, therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be justified. 7. Strong Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in I.K. Mansoori vs. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 3 RLW 1969. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. A bare look at the advertisement (Annex. 1) reveals Clause (3) of the conditions as under: ^^3- mDr Áfrfu;qfDr lk/kkj.kr% 1 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy;s gS ijUrq bls jktLFkku xzkeh.k fodkl jkT; lsok@jktLFkku Á'kklfud lsok ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds miyC/k gksus vFkok Á'kklfud dkj.kksa ls fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lekIr fd;k tk ldsxkA** 10. It was indicated that deputation ordinarily was for a period of one year but the same could be put to an end without prior notice on availability of officers from the Rajasthan Rural Development State Service/Rajasthan Administrative Service or administrative reasons. On the selection of the petitioner pursuant to the above advertisement, the parent department while according its permission (Annex. 4) indicated as under:- ^^Jh bUæflag jktiqjksfgr vuqns'kd 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk ¼vkjŒohŒvkjŒbZŒ,lŒ½ jktdh; egkfo|ky; ckyh] ikyh dh lsok,a xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx esa fodkl vf/kdkjh ds in ij ,d o"kZ ds fy;s Áfrfu;qfDr ij fn;s tkus gsrq bl foHkkx dh vukifrr ,rn~}kjk Ánku dh tkrh gSA mDr gsrq l{ke Lrj ls vuqefr ÁkIr dj yh xbZ gSA** 11. Pursuant to the selection, the petitioner was relieved and he joined on the deputation post on 8/9/2015. It appears that the parent department by its communication dt. 20/6/2017, required the petitioner to join back at the parent department and required the Panchayati Raj Department to relieve the petitioner, which was resisted by the Panchayati Raj Department. Pursuant to the selection, the petitioner was relieved and he joined on the deputation post on 8/9/2015. It appears that the parent department by its communication dt. 20/6/2017, required the petitioner to join back at the parent department and required the Panchayati Raj Department to relieve the petitioner, which was resisted by the Panchayati Raj Department. Again on 15/12/2017, the petitioner was required by the parent department to join back with the parent department, however, the petitioner continued on deputation with the Panchayati Raj Department whereafter, on 6/3/2019 (Annex. 14), the deputation has been put to an end and the services of the petitioner have been repatriated. The law relating to deputation has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. V. Ramakrishnan & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 394 , wherein, it has been inter alia laid down as under: "Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. A deputations indisputably has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. However, there is no bar thereto as well. It may be true that when deputation does not result in absorption in the service to which an officer is deputed, no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as he is continued to be a member of the parent service. When the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala fide. An action taken in a post haste manner also indicates malice." 12. A perusal of the facts of the present case would reveal that the period of deputation in the advertisement was indicated 'ordinarily for one year' and it was also indicated therein that the same could be put to an end for administrative reasons or on availability of officers from Rajasthan Rural Development State Service/RAS. The stipulation regarding putting the deputation to end pertains to the period of one year and not after expiry of one year, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. The parent department also accorded its 'No Objection' to the deputation only for one year vide Annex. The stipulation regarding putting the deputation to end pertains to the period of one year and not after expiry of one year, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. The parent department also accorded its 'No Objection' to the deputation only for one year vide Annex. 4 as quoted hereinbefore. 14. Therefore, insofar as tenure of deputation of the petitioner is concerned, the same was for one year only however, the petitioner continued on deputation with the Panchayati Raj Department and despite communication from the parent department requiring his services back with it, the Panchayati Raj Department resisted the same, however, by order dt. 6/3/2019, the deputation has been put to an end. 15. Once the period of deputation in the advertisement was indicated as ordinarily one year and the petitioner had completed the said period and had remained on deputation for almost 3½ years, the action of the parent department in recalling the services of the petitioner and of the Panchayati Raj Department in putting the deputation to an end cannot be faulted, inasmuch as it is well settled that the petitioner has no legal right to continue on deputation. 16. So far as the other parameters as indicated in the case of V. Ramakrishnan (supra) regarding mala fides and post haste manner is concerned, it needs only be observed that no allegations of mala fide have been levelled in the writ petition and as the petitioner has already completed more than 3½ years on deputation and the parent department had way back in June 2017 sought repatriation of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the action has been taken in post haste manner so as to require interference/based on the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. So far as reliance placed on the judgment in the case of I.K. Mansoori (supra) is concerned, in the said case the advertisement had indicated that the deputation ordinarily would be for 3 years and the parent department while according its 'No Objection' for the deputation had not stipulated any period and the said period was curtailed by the respondents therein and, therefore, on account of abrupt termination of deputation, the same was interfered by this Court. 18. 18. As already noticed hereinbefore, the facts of the present case are totally different, wherein, the period of deputation as per advertisement was indicated ordinarily one year, the permission granted by the parent department was restricted to one year and the petitioner had already completed 3½ years and as such the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 19. In view of the above discussion there is no substance in the writ petition, and the same is, therefore, dismissed.