® ' BILASPUR w.P.No.3%:F/2oo5 ($3.) PETITIONER R. Narayanan, aged about 58 years, Son of Shri C. R. Nambiar, Working as Finance Officer, in Guru Ghasidas University, Biiaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 01) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in the cause title. 02) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As mentioned in the cause title. IN THE HONBLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT AT r W VERSQS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Mantralaya Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. i The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantraiaya Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan i Raipur (C.G.). 3. Shri Guru Ghasidas University, Through: The Registrar, G.G.D. University, Koni, Biiaspur (C.G.). /4. Shri Amrit Lal Khuntei, Deputy Director, Directorate, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.). XIVHO78 [A1 P N 4- TH 2-005 mam (W) Ew'‘rmmméw . , . mmmmiwmm $manasi 29.07.2005 Shri PKG. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Shashi Bhusan, counsel for the petitionm‘. Shri Vivek Shal‘ma, Panel Lawyar for the State. on advanca Copy. I A. Noa 65?7 of 2005 This is an application fur urgsnt hearmg. T116 matter is taken up on Board. LA. No. 6577 of 2005 for urgent hearing stands disposbd of. an$§Twféafai aw emaiwn'ili W P. Nag 3467 of 2005 Heard ’ Shri P,K.C. Ti€watL learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner on admission. By Way of this: Wlit petition filed under Article’226f 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of suitable writ to quash the orden Annexures-P/ l & P/ 12 passed on 17th of June, 2005 and 25th 3f July, 2005. He has also prayed for issuance 50f suitable directions to extend the . peliod of his v deputation upto 28.07.2007 as desired by respondent No. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined his service in the erstwhile State of Madhva Pradesh in the Local Fund, Audit Department under the control of Department of Finance in the year 1971. It appears from the Order dated 22.03.2004 that the petitioner was sent on deputation on the post of Finance Officer in ,. . Xl—HC-78 * WW,W,‘W 2 8 smaw‘Waw) . > WWW§WW§R a;W shést Llaspur on 25.02.2004 for a period of ‘ the aforesaid order of deputation, the vereity and hi3 period of deputation- emsxim‘aaias- z, ammwmm‘m :> ¥ Guru GhaSidas University B; i one ysar. In conSaquence of petitioner joineci in the Uni‘ aild’éd on 25.02.2005. Thereafter, thg . (Annaxure—Pf 1) was issued aw be posted as Deputy Dire¢ another of£iéer namely Amri been posted i11 place of the pe 1m}iugned order. dated 17.06.2005 1d the petitioner nae. been directed to :tor, Regional Office, Bilaspur and t Lal Khuntel-respondent No. 4 has titioner from Raipur to Bilaspur, Annexure-P/Q is mem‘ written by the Under Sec Department to the Upper Ch: Higher Education Departmen the deputation period of the and since the post held by the petitioner has been earmarked for State finance services, theriefore, respondent No. 4, the State finance services ofiicer, is be Department has requested by this letter that the administration of University may be directed to relieve the petitioner and to alow ’Shri Khuntel—respondent No. 4 to take his charges in piace of the petitioner. ) dated 25.07.2005 which has been retary (Aw'ar Shaohiv) of Finance ef Secretary (Awar Mukhya Shachiv), tin which it‘has been mentioned that petitioner has already been elapsed Ling sent to the University in place of the petitioner. The Finance Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the document Annexure—Pf5 which is letter dated 16.02.2005 wrigepiy the W §qi$ WfN°3L1£iL W2005n { ‘, XLHc-78 Myra mwn‘fm ' H sawm (WW) h ._"§mmmm$ . V. —3, , ' mwmmwm wwmw 1 " ' Registrar of the University to the. Sgc’retaly of the State (FiJJance Department) wifh :a request 10 extend the period of deputation of the petitioner. He also refers to a letter dated 23¢ February, V2005 (Am1exure-P/6) written by the Vice—Chancellor of the University requesting for extension of tie {leputation of the fpetitioner by‘a period of two years i.e. up toi‘ebnlavry 28th, 2007. heéi‘ned counsel 29 ~11=L200§ arr&%1?q{.f%7if_$ ammwmwv » for the petiu'oner also refers to the document Annexure-P] 7 which is a letter dated 06:07.2005 Written by the Secretary; of Governor to the Awar Mukhya Shachiv, State of Chhattisgarh, Higher Education Department in which a request has been made for i extension of period of deputation on the basis of the letter issued by the VicewChancellor of the University to the said odioe. Leained counsel for the petitioner submits that even after recommendation of the Goverror, the impugned order was passed and theperiod of deputation was not extended. In light of the said letter he prays for quasiling of the said order and directing extension of period of deputation of the petitioner. I have heard, learned cornsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the records of case filed along with Wlit petition. The letters dated 16.0220G5 and 23.02.2005 air: the two request letters from side of the University for extending the period of deputation; However, the ietter dated. 06.07.2005 which is written byxthe Secretary of the Governor, is a request foWon x i ’ : Xl-HCa78 3 U WWWW i I: eat/......... ..... W mm “i200 $’ 311%:1 was (gafm) éfééw‘éx aan mwm ” ’ mm1§wm ' ‘ W mmmmsT ~4’2 $Wm$ V of process for extqhsion’ of period 6f deputation of flm petitianer. It is hnportant to mention this fact here that though this lettsr was issued on 06.07.2005 but this does not contain' that ordors of ropatn‘ation has already been passed on 17.06.2605. It appears that in fact, the lfetmr has baen written on the basis of request made by the Vice—Chancellor of the University whici’l wao wxitten in the. month of Februaly, 2005, that is) just about the time of completion of the period of deputation of the petitioner. .111 the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot take advantage of those letters or recommendau'ous, issued by Various authorities of the University b :cause the same were just a request having 110 hiudihg [effect oh the State in discharging, of its function. it also appears that perhaps the factum of passing of order dated 17.06.2005 was not brought to the notice of Secretaiy of the Govemor,- otherwise instead of writing for taking steps for ‘ extension of the period of deputation, the letter for recommendation of cancellation of order of repatriation would have been issued. ' ~' Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this court towards the prov1s1ons of Rule 5 of MP State University §erv1ce Rules, 1983 He argue that Clause (cl of‘sub-rule (1) o Rule 5 prov1des the Method of [tecnutinent by deputation from the State Government or any organii'ation other than the Universaties as the Kuladhipati may deem fit. He submits that the Vice— f ‘ w i“‘‘s“"f‘A"‘”‘r, f W1“; f" 3t? {1 k/ ¥ “i200; anéat tam (WW) en%:%1m1.§:aiw amanéamirn‘ii; u: mmmmw mm%%t€lm ' $Wanéw in 111s matter of appointment on equost or rocommendations of Vice- 116 weightage and on this ground, tho ;ido. ChanceBor has also a role. daputa’don, thsrefom, th€ 1* Chanceuor should b6 givan C order Annexure—P/ 1 be set a: I havca gona through provid€8 for Mttfhod of rec; Without pr€judice to the prc Sgrvice aft€r th€ commencm following methods, namely:- organizaud Kuzadmpai The provisions of suh attracted in the mattm‘ of r6§ axamine, thEtsa provisions, thf of these rules specially Claus: attracted £11 case when a fras made. This is not the case of respondent N0. 4 1's bsing a} University 01‘ my other autho ‘(116 Vics—Chancallor of the U the Rules referred ‘to abovo. Rule 5 fuitment. It has been provided that vvisions of rule 7,'rec111itment to the. t nent of these rules, shall be by the n other than the Unwersmes as the . 1 maJ deem fit —mle (1) clause (c) of Rule 5 are mitment by deputation. If we deeply 11 it would appear that the provisions (e) of sub-rule (1) of Rule'S shall be h recruitment on deputation is being the petitioner that-the recruitment of iposed by the Vice—Chancellor of the glity. The petitioiler has Gilly said that ‘nivei‘sity has also recommended for / W (a) by direct recruitment, (b) by promotion of persoms, holding a lower post v which may or may not comprise the Service to a higher posi comprising the Service, and 1 (c) by deputatt'on fiom the State Govemment or cmJ XI~HC-78 :5]. mm$ 8‘.) €.3 qé W200 g mam? (W) ‘ L ‘mmm mé \gw ExtmlSion of his. period of d€jputati011 This does not mean that th€ - VIC6—Chemceilor has opposmi W ?/ stra'a‘airfém‘ai 1 Han Wigwam ths daputation of respond6i1t No. 4.” 111 1‘116 opinion of this Coun‘t, the. petitioner, who is praying for quashing the ordor of repatt‘Lation and for extsnsion of tho period of deputatiml, cannot , take alivantage o% Lmese ‘ rulos. These ruios are o notattracted in ca'Se of extonsion of pem'od off’dépufatiqn. This argument cannot be accepted" It has boon odd by Ham Die 1:116 Supreme Court 1'11 the matter of $ta€e of Pamgab and at hers —vs~ Inder $mgh and whey-5; mgw‘teé m (19922 8 SCC adage 3?2z that‘oohcept of “deputation” is Well understood in servicef law and has a recognized meaning. “Deputation” ‘ dictio.na1y_meanjng of The Word “cieputation” simple word, “deputation” outside the parent department. transfeirjng an employee to a to another department on a 111 means service outside'the cadre. or Deputation has a different connotation in service law. The is of no help. is deputing or post outside his cadre, that is to say, After the expiry petiod of deputation, the employee has to come back to his parent departnlent to occuny the s e position unless in the meanwhile he has earned piomotlon 1n hls parent department as per the tecrmtment rules Whethei t1 e transfer is outsmle the normal field ‘ of deployment or not 1s de01de by the authority which controls the service or post from which th employee istransferred. There can he no deputation Without the onsent of the person so deputed and mamamewm ewmsi " ' and same is; turned, down. temporaiy basis. ~ "