Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kailash Chandra Gehlot vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 August, 2019
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8209/2019
Indra Vikram Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Chhatar Singh, Aged About
47 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Plot No. 50, Khasra No.
31, Nandri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. State Mission Director, Rajasthan Gramin Ajeevika Vikas
Parisha, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Project Director (Livelihood Project And Self Help Groups),
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Project Manager, Rajasthan Gramin Ajeevika Vikas
Parishad, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7614/2019
Kailash Chandra Gehlot S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 39
Years, By Caste Nai (Sen), Resident Of Plot No. 560, Hanuwant A
Sector, Bjs Colony, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. Station Mission Director, Rajasthan Gramin Ajeevika Vikas
Parishad, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Project Director (Livelihood Project And Self Help Groups),
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Project Manager, Rajasthan Gramin Ajeevika Vikas
Parishad, Barmer, (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria.
Mr. Manish Patel.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Singh for
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 02:25:36 AM)
(2 of 10)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 14/08/2019 These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 29.05.2019, whereby the Project Director (LP&SHG) Rajivika has, relying on provisions of Rule 144A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ('the Rules'), terminated the deputation of the petitioners and they have been repatriated to the parent department i.e. the Secondary Education Department.
It is, inter alia, submitted in the writ petitions that by order dated 03.07.2012 and 25.09.2013, the petitioners, who are Teachers Grade-III were appointed on deputation as PFT Manager/Coordinator, the order was passed by the State Mission Director, Rajivika Projects. Subsequent thereto, by order dated 16.04.2015 (Annex.-3), the petitioners were appointed as Accounts Assistant, DPMU again on deputation, which order was also issued by the State Mission Director. The petitioners continued to function in the said position when by order (Annex.-
8) dated 29.05.2019, the Project Director noticing that the petitioners were appointed as PFT Manager/Coordinator on deputation on 03.07.2012 and 25.09.2013 respectively and were presently working with the District Project Management Unit, Jodhpur and Barmer and have spent 5 years 8 months and 6 years 10 months respectively with Rajivika and, therefore in terms of Rule 144A of the Rules, the deputation was put to an end and the petitioners were repatriated to the parent department. (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 02:25:36 AM)
(3 of 10) It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of the respondents in putting to an end petitioners' deputation is ex-facie illegal, inasmuch as, the order putting to an end petitioners' deputation has not been passed by the competent authority. It was submitted that while the petitioners were accorded appointment on deputation by the State Mission Director Rajivika, the order impugned has been passed by the Project Director and, therefore, on said count, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.
It was alleged that non-application of the mind is apparent as in the orders impugned it has been indicated that the petitioners are working as PFT Manager/Coordinator whereas they are working on different posts since 2015.
Submissions have been made that the action of the respondents is malafide, inasmuch as, the petitioner-Indra Vikram Singh was on leave when the order impugned was passed and further allegations have been made that on account of the fact that the petitioner was not toeing the line of the Project Director, the order impugned has been passed.
Submissions have also been made that reliance has been placed on Rule 144A only for targeting the petitioners while others, who have also completed more than 5 years are working in the Project, which fortifies the malafide.
Further submissions have been made that the deputation could have been put to an end only based on conditions indicated in the order and as the appointment was for the entire Project period and the Project is still continuing, the termination of (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 02:25:36 AM) (4 of 10) petitioners' deputation is contrary to the law laid down in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India & Anr.: (2012) 7 SCC 757.
Qua the applicability of provisions of instructions under Rule 144A, it was submitted that the petitioners were freshly appointed in the year 2015 as Accounts Assistants and, therefore, they had not completed 5 years' period as envisaged under the instructions and on that count also, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioners, who are admittedly on deputation with Rajivika, have no vested right to continue on such deputation and, therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Submissions have been made that the petitioners were seeking to distort the orders passed by the respondents. It was submitted that the order dated 29.05.2019 has only made reference to the fact that the petitioners were appointed as PFT Manager/Coordinator by order dated 03.07.2012 and 25.09.2013 and were presently working at Jodhpur and Barmer respectively and, therefore, the plea raised that the petitioners have been wrongly shown as working on the post of PFT Manager/Coordinator is baseless.
Further submissions have been made that in the order of deputation, it was specifically indicated that the deputation can be terminated if the services of the petitioners were not required in the Project. By order dated 24.06.2016 (Annex.-4), the position of Accounts Assistant in DPMU, was abolished and the position of (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 02:25:36 AM) (5 of 10) Accountant was to be filled-up by direct contract and, therefore, the requirement of petitioners, who were working as Accounts Assistant had come to an end and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard seeking a right to perpetually work on deputation cannot be accepted.
Further submissions have been made that admittedly the petitioners have completed 5 years 8 months and 6 years 10 months with the respondent-Rajivika on deputation and, therefore, the instructions under provisions of Rule 144A are attracted and, as such, the deputation has rightly been put to an end by the respondents and the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief from this Court.
The allegations regarding malafides have been denied and qua the submission that several other persons have been working despite having completed 5 years, has been explained by way of filing documents to indicate that the allegations made in this regard were baseless.
Reliance has been placed on judgments in Naina Ram & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 5324/2016, decided on 01.11.2017, upheld in Ramdev Bhalia v. State of Raj. & Ors.:
DBSAW No. 1053/2017, decided on 09.01.2018.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners were accorded appointment by way of deputation by orders dated 29.05.2013 and 03.07.2012 respectively from the post of Teacher Grade-III to PFT Manager/Coordinator. Whereafter, by order dated 16.04.2015, (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 02:25:36 AM) (6 of 10) the petitioners were accorded appointment on deputation as Accounts Assistant. The relevant part of the order, reads as under:-
"mijksDr dkfeZdksa dk p;u ifj;kstuk vof/k ds fy, gS] ijUrq blls iwoZ Hkh fuEu fLFkfr;ksa esa fcuk dkj.k crk;s ifj;kstuk ls dk;ZeqDr dj muds iSr`d foHkkx esa okil Hkstk tk ldrk gSA 1- ;fn dkfeZd dk dk;Z larks'ktud ugha ik;k x;kA 2- ;fn dkfeZd dh lsokvksa dh vko";drk bl ifj;kstuk dks ugha gqbZA 3- ;fn dkfeZd LosPNk ls vius iSr`d foHkkx esa tkuk pkgsA mijksDr p;fur lHkh dkfeZdksa dks fnukad 30-04-2015 rd viuk dk;Zxzg.k djuk gS] vU;Fkk mudk inLFkkiu fujLr ekuk tk;sxkA "
It is also not in dispute that the respondent-Rajivika, by order dated 24.06.2016, reconstituted/created various posts in State Project Management Unit ('SPMU') and District Project Management Unit ('DPMU'), in which the position of Accounts Assistant held by petitioners was done away with and the mode of recruitment for position of Accountant was indicted on 'direct contract'.
The petitioners, filed writ petitions being SBCW Nos. 7690/2016 and 7724/2016 respectively, wherein based on the claim of the petitioners that they were discharging duties on the post of 'Accountant/Cashier', it was directed that they may not be replaced by another set of contractual employees. Apparently, the said submission regarding working on the post of Accountant/Cashier was contrary to the order of appointment, whereby the petitioners were appointed on deputation as 'Accounts Assistant', whereafter the petitioners continued to work on deputation.
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 02:25:36 AM)
(7 of 10) On the directions of this Court, the petitioners have produced documents which indicate that though pursuant to the initial orders of appointment on deputation, the parent department had given its consent, however, when the appointments were made by order dated 16.04.2015 as Accounts Assistant in DPMU, no such consent was accorded by the parent department and the petitioners were simply relieved from the position of PFT by Rajivika to join as Accounts Assistant.
From the above set of facts, it is apparent that the work of the petitioners, who were appointed on deputation as Accounts Assistant by orders dated 16.04.2015, had come to an end with the reconstitution of the sanctioned posts at DPMU.
In view thereof, the reliance placed on judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) does not advance the cause of the petitions, which judgment also envisages that in terms of order of deputation, the deputation can come to an end/put to an end.
Further, insofar as the deputation from the Education Department to the Rajivika is concerned, the parent department had granted their consent way back in the year 2013 and 2012 respectively for appointment on deputation and pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2015, no fresh consent of the department was obtained/given and, therefore, apparently the plea raised by the petitioners based on their not completing 5 years since order dated 16.04.2015 was passed according them appointment on the post of Accounts Assistant, cannot be sustained. (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 02:25:36 AM)
(8 of 10) Provisions of Rule 144A provides that the terms and conditions of the State Government Servants on deputation, shall be regulated in accordance with the orders issued by the Government from time to time The relevant Government of Rajasthan's decision is dated 01.02.1986, which provides for the conditions under which Clause-7 deals with duration of deputation, reads as under:-
"7. Duration of Deputation: The maximum period for which a Government servant may remain on deputation shall in no case exceed four year's, provided that in cases where it is, considered absolutely necessary in public interest and in special circumstances, to extend the period of deputation on foreign service beyond the maximum period of four years, the Administrative Department shall be competent to extent the period of deputation upto one year more i.e. upto 5 years, in all without any, prior reference to the Finance Department. But for the period exceeding fifth years, prior permission of Finance Department for extension in deputation period would be necessary."
A perusal of the above provision indicates that the maximum period indicated is 5 years and as noticed hereinbefore, insofar as the parent department is concerned, the petitioners are on deputation with the respondent-Rajivika for more than 5 years and merely because during the course of deputation, the respondents chose to accord appointment to the petitioners from the post of PFT Manager/Coordinator to Accounts Assistant, would have no implication insofar as the period of deputation is concerned and, consequently, the plea raised in this regard, cannot be countenanced.
Insofar as the plea raised by the petitioners regarding lack of jurisdiction with the Project Director, Rajivika to pass the order impugned dated 29.05.2019 is concerned, the order impugned, noticing the fact that the maximum period as prescribed under the (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 02:25:36 AM) (9 of 10) Government of Rajasthan's decision is 5 years on deputation, has come to an end and, therefore, the petitioners be required to be repatriated to the parent department cannot be termed as a order terminating the deputation of the petitioners, inasmuch as, the petitioners have been working on deputation much beyond the period prescribed as per the Government of Rajasthan's decision and, therefore, the plea raised that the order amounts to termination of petitioners' deputation and, therefore, is required to be passed by the same authority, which had accorded appointment on deputation also, has no substance.
Insofar as the allegations of malafides leveled in the case of Indra Vikram Singh against the Project Director Surendra Singh is concerned, the said Surendra Singh has not been impleaded as party-respondent in his personal capacity and, therefore, the allegations made in this regard, cannot be examined in absence of the said officer.
Further insofar as submissions made pertaining to certain officers i.e. Ramdeo Jat and Ganpat Singh Rathore continuing to work with the respondent-Department despite completion of period of 5 years is concerned, the said aspect has been adequately explained by the respondents in various replies, sub-rejoinders and affidavits etc. indicating that while Ganpat Singh Rathore is an employee of Corporative Society to whom the provisions of Section 144A are not applicable and Ramdeo Jat, who was looking after the work at Rajivika by way of additional charge, was regularly appointed on the post much later and, therefore, the said periods cannot be clubbed. Submissions made (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 02:25:36 AM) (10 of 10) in this regard, apparently takes care of the plea raised by the petitioners and no case is made out as alleged by the petitioners based on the said aspect.
This Court in the case of Naina Ram (supra), made the following observations, which aptly applies to the facts of the present case, which reads as under:-
"There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioners herein are substantively holding the post of Teacher and therefore, taking into consideration the nature of duties they are expected to discharge, it would not be appropriate to continue them on deputation for indefinite period on the post carrying non teaching duties. As a matter of fact, looking to the important function of imparting education to the children being discharged by the teachers, unless it is absolutely necessary for the administrative exigency, ordinarily, the teaching staff should not be posted on deputation or otherwise to discharge non teaching duties."
In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petitions, the petitions have no substance and are, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J PKS/-
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 02:25:36 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)