Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Anisha Begum vs Panchayat And Rural Development ... on 23 October, 2017
1
Writ Appeal No.501/2017
23.10.2017
Shri Ashish Choubey, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
ORDER
This intra court appeal, under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalayaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the appellant against order dated 21.07.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.3087/2017, whereby writ petition challenging her repatriation order dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure P/16) has been dismissed by the learned Writ Court on the ground that the deputation is not a right and the appellant is on deputation since 1966 and once the decision has been taken by the State Government to repatriate her, she has no right to challenge her repatriation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner has submitted that under Right to Information Act, 2005, the appellant has obtained number of letters and documents in respect of her repatriation and submitted that at the behest of local MLA, the aforesaid order has been passed.
3. Facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in School Education Department in the year 1982. Thereafter, on 2 20.08.1996, she was sent on deputation to Rajiv Gandhi Primary Education Mission and till 20.01.2017, she was on deputation in one or other Project of the State Government. Vide order dated 06.01.2004, she was sent on deputation to DPIP Project, which was for a period of five years.
4. Learned Writ Court considering the fact that order dated 17.12.2015 (Annexure P/12) was until further orders and thereafter, the State Government by order dated 20.01.2017 sent back the appellant to her parent department. After passing of the aforesaid order, on 30.05.2017, the State Government has taken a policy decision to cancel deputation of all employees and officers of the School Education Department and directed that by 31.05.2017, all its employees / officers should report to the School Education Department. This order has also been considered by the learned Writ Court while passing the impugned order.
5. Relevant part of order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No.3087/2017 reads, as under: -
"It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department. In the year 1982. In 1996 she was sent to Rajiv Gandhi Primary Education Mission and till today, she is on deputation in one or other project of the State Government. She has somehow got manage to continue her services on deputation. Vide 3 order dated 06.01.2004, she was sent on deputation to DPIP Project, which was only for the period of 5 years.
After closure of the said project, the Collector Rajgarh has appointed her on Samagra Swachhta Abhiyan as District Project Coordinator and there she continued for a period of 10 years and by order dated 30.06.2015, her services has been sent to School Education Department, but the said order was also cancelled by the Minister. Again, by order dated 17.12.2015, she was posted as District Project Manager in Panchayat Department as District Project Manager in Panchayat Department with a condition that she is liable to be sent back to her parent department at any time as this posting is temporary. Apart from the recommendation of local Minister about her cancellation of deputation, the petitioner has no legal right to continue on deputation. The State Government vide order dated 30.05.2017 has taken a policy decision to cancel the deputation of all employees and officer of School Education Department and directed that by 31.05.2017 all should report to the School Education Department. Order dated 30.05.2017 is reproduced below:
" e/;izns'k 'kklu
Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx
ea=ky;
oYyHk Hkou Hkksiky & 482004
@@vkns'k@@
Hkksiky] fnukad 30-05-2017
dzekad ,Q 1&13@2017@20&1 jkT; 'kklu] ,rn~ }kjk] Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx ds ,sls vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ¼f'k{kdh;@xSj f'k{kdh;½ tks Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx ds fu;a=.kk/khu fuxe@eaMy esa izfrfu;qfDr ij inLFk gS] dks NksM+dj ,sls vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh tks vU; foHkkxksa esa izfrfu;qfDr ij inLFk gS rFkk mudh izfrfu;qfDr vof/k lekIr gks xbZ gks rks mudh izfrfu;qfDr ij lkSaih xbZ lsok;sa rRdky izHkko ls okil yh tkrh gSAA 2@ foHkkx ,sls vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ¼f'k{kdh;@xSj f'k{kdh;½ tks vU; dk;kZy;ksa esa vkltu gksdj dk;Zjr~ gS] ,sls vklftr vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh dks viuh mifLFkfr ftl laLFkk@dk;kZy; ls os izfLFkr gq, Fks ml ewy laLFkk@dk;kZy; esa fnukad 31-05-2017 rd nsuk lqfuf'pr djsaxsA 3@ ,sls vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dk osru mudh ewy laLFkk esa mifLFkr gksus ds 4 mijkar gh vkgfjr fd;k tk,A vU;Fkk fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr vkgj.k laforj.k vf/kdkjh ftEesnkj jgsaxs o bldh olwyh muds osru ls dh tkosxhA 4@ mDr vkns'k rRdky izHkko los ykxw gksxkA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼jtuh flag½ mi lfpo] e/;izns'k 'kklu Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx"
It is settled law that the deputation is not a right and the petitioner is on deputation since 1966. She has hardly worked in the Education Department as a Teacher, for which, she was appointed. The School Education Department is in need of teaching and non teaching staff, therefore, the State Government has taken decision to cancel all deputation of all teaching and non teaching staff In view of the above, no interference is called for against the order dated 20.01.2017. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India through Government of Pondicherry & another v. V. Ramakrishnan and others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 394 and in the case of Bahadur Sinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 65; and prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.
7. In the case of Union of India through 5 Government of Pondicherry & another v. V. Ramakrishnan and others (supra), the term of deputation was curtailed, and therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that curtailment of term of deputation and reversion of respondent therein was not valid and set aside the order.
8. In the present case, the order of deputation of the appellant was until further orders.
9. On due consideration of the aforesaid, both the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court are distinguishable on facts of the present case.
10. Considering the aforesaid, the appellant has no legal right to continue at the post of deputation for an unlimited period.
11. Accordingly, Writ Appeal No.501/2017 has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
Pithawe RC