Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.13568 of 2009 Smt. Sanjukta Rout …. Petitioner Mr. A.K.Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr.S.N.Das, ASC CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 15.03.2022 6. 1. The challenge is the present petition is to an order dated 16th April, 2009 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (OAT) dismissing the Petitioner’s O.A. No. 1406 of 2001. By the impugned order the OAT decline to quash an order dated 6th September, 2001 whereby the Petitioner was reverted from the post of Lecturer in the State Institute of Technology (S.I.E.T.), Orissa, Bhubaneswar to the parent department i.e. Director, Secondary Education/Inspectorate of Khurda. 2. At one stage the OAT had passed an interim order directing the Petitioner’s reversion order to be kept in abeyance. This interim order kept getting extended till January, 2002. When the OAT refused to extend the interim order beyond that date, the Petitioner filed OJC No.684 of 2002 in tis Court. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 10th December, 2008 Page 2 of 3 with a direction to the OAT to dispose of the O.A. itself at an early date. 3. The OAT has an impugned order noted that the Petitioner had continued on deputation in SIET for more than five years. As rightly observed by the OAT, posts which are filled up by way of deputation are not meant to be a permanent avenue of employment outside one’s own line of service. There was no vested right for the Petitioner to continue to remain on deputation at the SIET. 4. In the present case notice was directed to issue on 15th September, 2009 to SIET i.e. Opposite Party No. 2. The requisites had to be filed within two days. Nearly a month later on 12th October, 2009, when the case was again listed, none appeared for the Petitioner. This Court then passed the following order: “None appears. Let the requisites be filed in compliance of order No.2 dated 15.9.2009. If such requisites are not filed by 19.10.2009, then the writ petition shall be dismissed for default of the petitioner without further reference to the Bench.” 5. Again, nearly six months thereafter on 22nd April, 2010, the Petitioner was given yet another chance to file requisites for notice to be served on Opposite Party No.2. That was, however, not done. Today, when the matter was called out, counsel for the Petitioner candidly admitted that, despite two opportunities requisites for Opposite Party No.2 had not been filed and in terms of the order of this Court, the writ petition ought to be Page 3 of 3 automatically dismissed. Nevertheless, counsel for the Petitioner insisted on arguing that petition on merits and the Court permitted him to do so. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, the Court is not persuaded that the impugned order of the OAT suffers from any legal error warranting interference. No one should insist on being on deputation definitely. The decision whether an employee should be reverted to the parent cadre after a period, is entirely for the lending (parent) department to consider based on the exigencies of service. It may so happen that on deputation, the terms of service may be slightly more attractive with higher perks. That, however, does not mean that when at the end of the deputation, one is reverted to the parent cadre, one is being reverted to a lower rank. The Petitioner was failed to make out any case, to somehow continue on deputation. The order reverting her to the parent department was part of a routine administrative exercise and nothing more. 7. The Court is therefore, unable to find any error in the impugned order of the OAT. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (R.K. Pattanaik) Kabita/Tudu Judge