Civil Writ Petition No. 11622 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11622 of 2009 Date of decision: 05.08.2009. Dr. Harshinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order Annexure P-9, vide which the petitioner had been recalled from deputation, to her parent department. The petitioner was posted as Medical Officer in the Rajindra Hospital on deputation. The petitioner claimed, that she has done her post-graduation in Paediatrics, and being involved in health care of children, her interest grew in, to check the declining sex ratio of girl child, so she started working in the said field. The petitioner claimed that she has been honoured for her professional and social work, relating to female foeticide. For the social work done by her, she was awarded by the Government of Punjab on 15.8.2006, for her exemplary service rendered in her field of profession and social service. She further claimed that she was bestowed an award by the Governor of Punjab and Civil Writ Petition No. 11622 of 2009 -2- the Health Minister of Punjab also. The petitioner has further been awarded by the United Nations for the social service done by her. It is also asserted by the petitioner, that she was selected by an NGO named Interfaith, working in Geneva, to represent the said organisation in the 11th session of Human Rights Council of the United Nations held from 2nd June, 2009 to 19th June, 2009. In pursuance to the invitation, she made presentation on the topic “Infanticide concern in Punjab”, to dispel the view of UNICEF, that the Punjab, specially the Sikhs were topping the list of killers of girl child. It is the case of the petitioner, that one Dr. P. Srivastava, who was representing an NGO, sponsored by the Government of India, had entered into discussions with her and threatened her of dire consequences for the presentation made. On return, she was harassed by the CBI and other intelligence agencies, for having made presentation in United Nations. The State of Punjab, therefore, passed the impugned order Annexure P-9, which reads as under: - “In reference to the subject cited above. 2. Dr. Harshinder Kaur, Medical Officer gave a speech against the government in United Nations Human Rights Council meeting held at Geneva from 2-19 June, 2009. So taking the matter seriously the government has decided to recall the Doctor. So you are being asked to relieve Dr. Harshinder Kaur Medical Officer immediately without any delay and send a copy of the same to the department.” The learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged this order on the ground of malafide. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations that petitioner spoke against Civil Writ Petition No. 11622 of 2009 -3- Government were totally false, and do not find support from the presentation made by her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, not been able to point out, as to which legal right of the petitioner has been infringed by recall from deputation. Merely because the recall from deputation is based on an allegation, which may or may not be true, cannot give right to the petitioner to challenge an order, when the Government has absolute right under the rules to recall an employee from deputation. Once the legal right of the petitioner to continue on post is not there, it cannot be said that the petitioner was entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court, merely because reasons for recall from deputation were not justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the reasons mentioned being stigmatic, vitiate the order passed. This plea also cannot be accepted. Once it is not in dispute that the petitioner has no legal right to continue on deputation nor the order is punitive, or affecting civil rights, no ground is made out to interfere with impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 05, 2009 R.S.