Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Lashkari vs Technical Education And Skill ... on 7 April, 2016
1
WP No. 7934 of 2015
7/4/2016
Shri L.C. Patne learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri M. Parwal learned counsel for respondents.
Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging his repatriation from deputation before completion of the tenure.
In brief the case of petitioner is that vide order dated 15/6/2015 passed by State Government the petitioner who is working as Lecturer was sent on deputation from Polytechnic College Khurai to Polytechnic College Ujjain for a period of 2 years. Thereafter the Director Technical Education had issued the orders dated 6/10/15 & 29/10/15 while forwarding the list of candidates selected on the post and directing that lecturers working on the post on deputation be repatriated and on the basis of said orders the relieving order dated 7/11/15 was issued.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that before completion of tenure the petitioner could not be repatriated and that the impugned order has been passed by the authority lower than the authority who had sent the petitioner on deputation therefore, the order is without jurisdiction.
As against this, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order and has submitted that petitioner has no right to continue on deputation.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that the petitioner is being repatriated before completion of period of two years for which he was sent on deputation by order dated 15/6/15.
Supreme court in the matter of Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and another Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and 2 others, reported in 2005 SC (L &S) 1150 has held as under:-
"32. Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. A deputationist 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. (See Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil V. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia SCC para
25).
The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme court makes it clear that even the tenure of the deputation can be curtailed on the just grounds.
In the present case the record reveals that petitioner at his own request was sent on deputation to Polytechnic College Ujjain because the post was vacant. Thereafter the regular recruitment to the post has been made, therefore, while issuing the direction for appointment of the regular candidates the Director Technical Education vide communication dated 6/10/15 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 29/10/15 general order in this regard was again issued by the Director and in pursuance to the said orders the petitioner was relieved on 7/11/2015. Since the repatriation of 3 petitioner to the parent institution is on account of filling up of the post by the regular candidates therefore the repatriation of petitioner is for just reason.
So far as the issue of jurisdiction raised by petitioner is concerned, the order dated 6/10/15 has been issued by the Director, Technical Education after approval of the State Government.
It has also been pointed out by counsel for State that the parent institution of petitioner as well as Polytechnic College Ujjain where the petitioner was sent on deputation are under control of same Directorate i.e. Directorate of Technical Education. Hence the repatriation of petitioner by the Director of Technical Education does not suffer from any error.
It is the settled position in law that deputationist has no legal right to continue on deputation and even the fix tenure deputation can be curtailed on the just and proper grounds and in the present case the ground disclosed by the respondents is found to be just. Hence no illegality is found in repatriation of petitioner in the parent institution.
In these circumstances, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed.
C.C. As per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge BDJ