Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Lashkari vs Technical Education And Skill ... on 27 April, 2016
W. A. No.160/2016
27.04.2016
Shri L. C. Patne, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. Brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 15.06.2015, the
appellant, who is working as Lecturer was sent on deputation
temporarily from Polytechnic College Khurai to Polytechnic College,
Ujjain for a period of two years on his own expenses until further
orders by the respondent No.1. Thereafter, Director, Technical
Education had issued the orders dated 06.10.2015 and 29.10.2015 curtailing the tenure of deputation of the appellant on the ground that in order to make room for the new appointees appointed under the recruitment undertaken by the respondent No.1 and directed that the Lecturers working on the said post on deputation be repatriated and on the basis of the said order, order dated 07.11.2015 was issued.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant challenged his repatriation on the ground that order of deputation was passed by the State Government on 15.06.2015 whereas, the impugned action has been taken by the Director, Technical Education of Government of MP, which is wholly without jurisdiction.
4. Learned Writ Court considering the fact that the appellant at his own request was sent on deputation to Polytechnic College, Ujjain because the post was vacant, thereafter, the regular recruitment to the post was made, therefore, while issuing the direction for appointment of the regular candidates, the Director Technical Education had directed that Lecturers working on the said post on deputation be repatriated to the parent department for which no separate order will be passed and, thereafter on 29.10.2015, general order in this regard was also issued and in pursuance to the said orders, the appellant was relieved on 07.11.2015.
5. It is also held that the appellant was sent on deputation under the control of same Directorate i.e., Directorate of Technical Education, hence, his repatriation by the Director, Technical Education does not suffer any error and dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 07.04.2016 passed in W. P. No.7934/2015.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of Writ Court, this intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant on the ground that 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 the ground of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance.
7. It is contended that the appellant was sent on deputation by order 15.06.2015 by the respondent No.1 whereas, the order of repatriation has been passed by the Director, Technical Education and, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. He has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and another vs. V. Ramakrishnan and others reported in 2005 SC (L&S) 1150 and submitted that the impugned order be set aside and writ appeal of the appellant be allowed.
8. It is well settled law that a deputationist has no legal right to continue on deputation and even the fixed tenure of the deputation can be curtailed on the just and proper grounds. It is also well settled that when the tenure of deputation is specified, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed.
10. In the present case, the appellant at his own request was sent on deputation to Polytechnic College, Ujjain because the post was vacant. Thereafter, regular recruitment to the post has been made and the Director, Technical Education had directed that Lecturers working on the said post be repatriated to the parent department for which no separate order will be issued and, thereafter, on 29.10.2015, general order was again issued by the Director, Technical Education. Since the repatriation of the appellant to the parent institution is on account of filling up of the post by the regular candidates, therefore, his term has been curtailed. The reason assigned by the respondent is just and proper. Ordinarily, the appointment on the post on which the appellant was sent on deputation has been filled, the order passed by the learned Writ Court is just and proper. It cannot be said that the order is without jurisdiction or contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of V. Ramakrishnan (supra). The appellant has no legal right to continue on the post.
11. For these reasons, we are of the view that the respondents have not committed any illegality or irregularity in repatriating the appellant in the parent institution. The writ appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(P. K. Jaiswal) (Vivek Rusia)
Judge Judge
gp