Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Lal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 September, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 770/2022
Bhanwar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, Aged About
48 Years, Sharma Sadan, Opposite Kapda Meel, Near Railway
Line, Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The State Project Director, Rajasthan State Education
Council, Dr. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Eklavya
Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Opp. Ots Bridge,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Additional State Project Director-I, Rajasthan State
Education Council, Dr. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul,
Eklavya Bhawan Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Opp. Ots
Bridge, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Additional District Project Coordinator, Samagra
Shiksha, Government Girls Senior Secondary School,
Matka Chowk Campur, Sriganganagar, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Govind Suthar
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 06/09/2022 The present appeal is filed against the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby, the (Downloaded on 08/09/2022 at 08:57:55 PM) (2 of 4) [SAW-770/2022] prayer to allow the appellant to work on the post of Assistant Project Coordinator (hereinafter referred to as 'APC'), on deputation in the Rajasthan State Education Council was rejected.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant while working on the post of Principal in the Education Department pursuant to Advertisement dated 19.02.2019, came to be selected and appointed as APC, in a project named ' समग्र शिक्षा अभियान' run by the Rajasthan State Education Council, on deputation. Initially, vide order dated 28.02.2019 the appellant was appointed on deputation in Rajasthan State Education Council for a period of one year, however, the period of deputation was extended from time to time. A policy decision dated 31.01.2022 was taken by the respondents to the effect that all those working under 'Samagrah Shiksha Abhiyaan', run by Rajasthan State Education Council against four posts viz. Programme Officer, Resource Person, Assistant Project Coordinator and Assistant Director, who have completed 3 years or more on deputation shall be repatriated to their original post/ parent department.
Learned counsel for the appellant while attacking the policy decision vehemently submitted that the instructions issued under Rule 144-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (RSR) clearly stipulate that deputation can continue at least for 4 years. Since, the appellant had not completed 4 years on deputation, therefore, it would be unjustified to repatriate him to his original post/parent department. It was further submitted that order of deputation issued in favour of petitioner dated 28.02.2019 did not incorporate any condition enunciating maximum years of service on deputation. The only condition prevailing at that time was that a deputationist can be repatriated to original post/parent (Downloaded on 08/09/2022 at 08:57:55 PM) (3 of 4) [SAW-770/2022] department on rendering unsatisfactory services. It was thus, prayed that the appellant be allowed to work on deputation with Rajasthan State Education Council.
The learned Single Bench in its judgment dated 03.08.2022 noted that a policy decision had been taken by the respondents regarding repatriation of the employees working with Rajasthan State Education Council, on deputation after 3 years of service or more against 4 posts viz. Programme Officer, Resource Person, Assistant Project Coordinator and Assistant Director. Therefore, the policy decision having been taken after due consideration of the relevant material does not call for interference.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, the appellant is working on the post of Principal in the Education Department. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 19.02.2019, the appellant after facing selection process was appointed as APC, on deputation with Rajasthan State Education Council. The appellant had completed more than 3 years of service on deputation, therefore, he cannot resist repatriation to original post/parent department. A person working on deputation doesn't acquire an indefeasible right to continue working on deputation. It is settled law that a deputationist can claim neither a right to the post nor continuance /absorption on permanent basis to the post against which he is working on deputation. The policy decision dated 31.01.2022, to repatriate all those employees working on deputation against the post of APC for 3 years or more to their original post/parent department is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The Hon'ble Supreme in the case of V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2008) 13 SCC (Downloaded on 08/09/2022 at 08:57:55 PM) (4 of 4) [SAW-770/2022] 730 pleased to hold that matters of policy are within the domain of the executive. A policy is not open to interference merely because the court feels that it is not practicable or less advantageous for government servants for whose benefit the policy is made or because it considered that a more fairer alternative is possible.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
33-KshamaD/-
(Downloaded on 08/09/2022 at 08:57:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)