^" IV ^ mGHCfWitTOFCaHAtTISGARH.BlLASPUR WRTT APPEALNo.Il/ D.B.:HON'BLESHRIJUSTICESUNILKUMARSINHA& HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.P; SHARMA APPELLANT/ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Sayed Jamil Ahmed, s/o Sayed Ahmed Ali, aged about 43 years, preseritly workingas Sub-Engiheer in the Tribal Welfare Departnient, Collectorate Office, Korba, R/o Sharda Vihar, MIG, 60, Transport Nagar, Korba (CG) Versus 1 State o£ Ghhattisgarh, Through Seeretaiy, -Ul-fcah Administration and DeVelopment Departraent, D.K.S. Bl"tawan,Raipi.ir,;DistrietRaipur(C;G.) 2. jThe Secretaiy, Scheduled. Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Classes ahd Mihority Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan,Raipur (CG). 3 The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Ravi Shankar University Campus, Raipur (C.G) 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare : Department, GoUectorate Campus, Korba (C.G). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SEGTION 2(1) OF TfiE CHHATnSGAKH HICai COURT (APPEAL TO IDEVISIONBBKCHI RtJLES, 2006 •KEAD WtTH RULE 157 CLAUSE (IQKel OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES, 2065 Apitearance: Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. AdvQCate with Shri AnandDadariya, counsel for the Appellant. Shri U..N.S. Chandel, Govt. Advocate, for the Stafe/respondents on advance copy. ORALORDER ^. tl9.01.20091 The following order of fhe Court was passed by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. W.A.No.l 1/2009 Heard oh admission. The appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal against the order dated 10.12.2008 passed in W.P.No.690/2006. The pedtioner was working as Sub-Engineer at the relevant tiirie m the Urban Adrninistrative Departinent. He was sent on deputation fc Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Minority WeUare Department vide order dated 19.7.2002. This order was passed after taking consent from the SG/ST Department. The petitioner was theft repatriated to his parent department by order dated 18.1.2006. Thepetitionerchallengeathere befbre the leanled Single Judge raising ground that his services have been repatria'ted to parent departnieht without corisent of the borrowing Department. The learhed single Judge held that the petitioner has no legal right to continue on deputation. It was also held that the averments in the writ petition would show that there were no allegatioris of malafide against ahy individual ih repatriating the services of the petitioner td his parent departnient. Learried single Judge also observed that the petitioner was repatriated after a lapse of almost about 4 years and fyrther he was cbntinuing with the bprrowing department even till the decision 6f the writ petition on 10.12.2008 on the basis of iriterim order paSsed by this Court^and observing aU this, the writ petition was disfflissed. Leamed counsel for the appellant raised only one point. His submission is that no consent was obtained fro& the borrowing department for- repat^ation bf the petitioner; therefore, the repatriation is not in accordance with law. We d6 not find euly force ^tSSuQ.1 ^,.. B '<i^^^^£s^ ':%,, '^y' ^is. W.A.No. 1172009 in such arguinent advanced by leamed counsel for the appellant/petitk>ner. It is almostsettled by the Apex Court that the basic prihciple underlying deputation itself is that the persbn concemed can always and.at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive pbsition therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a persoh to continue for long on deputation. Please see Kuna.l Nanda. ^us- Wtion ofIndieL aitd eifwtherrfSOOOI 5SCC362. Therefore, even if the conseht of borrowing department was not pbtauied^that tiiakes.no^diEference^^ea^ possible in law at the instahce of parent department alSO :m view c^ the decision rendered by the Apex Cburt in Kunal Nanda (supra). No other point was raised before us. We do hot find anyjnerit in the appeal. The ^aflle is liable^^^^fo beandisacc6rdmglydismissedatthemotionstage,itself. ; Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Rao