SCA/6069/1990 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6069 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== N I PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & others ====================================== Appearance : MR KIRIT I PATEL for Petitioner Mr. Kalpesh Pandit, AGP, for respondent No.1 MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 25/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/6069/1990 2/3 JUDGMENT 1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 14th May 1990 passed by the District Development officer, District Panchayat, Ahmedabad, repatriating the petitioner to the parent department on the ground that the power exercised by the Authority is unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and mala fide and, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2 The impugned order is challenged mainly on the ground that the respondent-Authority has no such power to repatriate the petitioner to the parent department and transfer of the petitioner to the Commissioner, Health & Medical Services, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, is an exercise undertaken at the behest of vested interests and to deprive the petitioner of his right to carry out the activities of Union. In addition to the above, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from cancer from 13.4.1989 and was undergoing medical treatment before Oncologist. 2.1 Considering the above aspects, it is submitted in the petition that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 3 Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Authority, namely, District Development Officer and District Panchayat, Ahmedabad, submits that, by the impugned order, the petitioner is only repatriated to his parent department and transfer of the employee to the parent department cannot be said to be an exercise of power contrary to the Rules or Regulations. According to Mr. Munshaw, the above order of repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department was passed when the petitioner failed to resume duties at the Primary Health Centre, Vataman and remained absent for a number of days. For repatriating the SCA/6069/1990 3/3 JUDGMENT employee, no opportunity of hearing is necessary to be given or consent of the employee is necessary. Besides, according to the learned counsel Mr. Munshaw, the impugned order is of the year 1990 and by passage of time, the issue involved in this petition no more requires adjudication in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record and the submissions made by Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Authority, it cannot be said that power exercised by the respondent-Authority in repatriating the petitioner to the parent department, where lien on the post exists, is in any manner unreasonable, arbitrary and it is always within the domain of the employer to take appropriate decision with regard to service conditions in consonance with the Rules governing such conditions. Besides, the deputationist has no indefeasible right to continue on the post of deputation. No material on record of this case indicates that powers exercised by the Authority can be termed as arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide. No case is made out for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5 In the result, this petition is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy)