fflGH COITRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPCR PETITIONER RE.SPONDENTS W'ritPe!ttti<Mt(S)Nu. 5199 of2^7 Shiv Narayan Diibey S/o Shri B.P. Dubey, Aged about 48 yeai-s, Basic Post is Assistant Teacher, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Beside Canal, New Chandniyapara, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (CG). VE.RSTTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2.The Managing Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Akikrit Bhawan, IInd Floor, Pension Bada, Raipur (CG). 3. The Collector, Digtrict Janjgir Champa (CG). 4. District Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan, District Janjgir Champa (CG). (WRTT PETmON tINDER ARTICIJi 226 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORALORDER (Fassed on 04U1 ofApi-B, 2008) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, impu^is the order dated 05.05.2007 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Secrftary, Govemment of Chhattisgarfi, School Edueation Department, whereby, the petitioner was repatriated back to the Education Department on being found not suitable on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator, Rajeev Gandbi Shiksha Mission, Baloda, Distt. Jaiijgir Champa (CG). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was sent on deputation for a period ofthree years on 10.06.2004. Before completion ofthe period ofthree years i.e. 09.06.2007, the petitioner was repatriated back to the education department on tfae yound that the petitioner being Assistant Teacher is not qualified to be sent on deputation pn the post of Bloek Resoiirce Centre Coordinator/Assistant Progranime Coordiaator on 05.05.2007 (Armexiire p/1). 3. Shri Anup Majumdar, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submrts that the order dated 05-05.2007 be qiiashed as it is stigmatic holding that the petitioner does not posses the required qualification. Secondly, the order recalling back the services of the petitioner from the deputatiou is without congent ofthe petitioner as well as without consent ofthe employer. Thiis, the impugned order is bad in law on the ground that the petitioner was c.\ recalled back to the parent deparbnent before completion of the period of deputatioii, wfaich cannot be done withoirt siibstantive reasons. 4. Per contra, Shri A-S. Kachhwaha, leamed coiuisel appearing for the respondent No. 2 & 4 would submit that the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan of Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, all the Primary Schools were up-graded to Upper Primary Schools. The Teachers required earlier for tfae Primaty Schools were Assistant Teachers like the petitioner. They were, accordingly, deputatioa but after up-gradation ofthe Primary Sdiools to Upper Primary Schools, more qualified teachers are required. The petitioner, being Assistant Teacher, has been repatriated back on the ground of up gradation of the Schools. As per gitidelines of Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Sliiksha Mission, earlier the qualification was as under: "R*i<t^^ *ghi <^s WFtra'ff: (3T} 'Mtd* ^ft -SqTRr warar ^) •?ii'a<i?1<i ?rrar ^' ^irf^ar cfiKsiiidi/ Risitb-/''HoRis)<t> l ^) ciiM'b wf v^ uf-reW 'ffS wrer {g) Risrr ^ ^Rt -sfa if9 cw-r t" 5. Thereafter, afler upgradation, the qualification of Block Resource Coordinator is as under: "1^<Bra^g. ^ghr «^-:5 'H*!'*!-"*: 3!p)<t!4 1. gf^rRra Ksw'f/w'fvs^. ^ itfe»iPi<b ?ii<><i/cui<suini I <t!'a-ft» 2- SRiKPR? *S!-!1<iR'r •i'T wy^ <st wwPra>tn l 3. ^Pft^ ^jT 4 ctt!t ^m •S^ <ft iifflOT St ! 4- >iR^\;s-!! 4 <sr4 q?34 <sr 3}^'Ira!" 6. In view ofthe policy decision ofthe State Govemmetrt, it became necessary to recall back all the Assistant Teachers to the Education Department and the Teachers who are having qualification required for Block Resource Centre Coordinator remains there on deputation. 7. Having heard leanied counsel appearmg for tiie parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that it is not a case ofsimplicitor repatriation before completion ofthe deputation period. c^ 8, Hon'ble the Supreme Court Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singfa and others while considering the deputation and repatriation to fhe parent cadre/departmeiit on expiry ofperiod ofdepirtation held as under:- "18- Tlie concept of "depirtation" is well understood in service law and has a recogiized meaning. "Deputation" has a difierent comiotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of tfae word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or touisferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has eamed promotion i" his parent departmetrt as per the Recniitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the nonnal field ofdeployinent or not is decided by the autfiority who controls the service or post from which <fae emplQyee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent oftlie person so deputed and he would, therefore, kaow his rights and privileges in tfae depirtation post. The law on deputation and repalriation is qutte settled as we have also seen in various judginents which we have referred to above........;...." 9. Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case ofUinapatt dioudhary Vs. Stete of Bihar and sstoibei? has defined 'dqiutation' inthe follov/ingtemis:- "Depirtation can be aptly described as an a-ssigmnent of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as the parent dqiartment or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowiiig authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies ofpublic service. The concept ofdeputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision ofthe employer to lend the services ofhis employee and a corresponding acceptance of such service by flie borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputationornot' 10.In the case of an employee ifhis suitabiUty to the post is under question because of misdemeanor or other conduct or other reasons, the borrowing dqiartment may repatriate the employee to the parent department prematurely or parent department may consider to repatriate tfae deputationist '• (1997) 8 SCC 372 2(1999)4S.C.C.©9 c^ prematurely. (See Judgment dated 04.04.2008, passed in W.P. No. 2298/2008 (Ajay Sharma Vs. State ofChhattisgarh & Others), aad connected matters). 11. It is clear from the retiim filed by the State Goverm'nent that the State Govemment has taken a decision to up@-ade Primary Schools to Upper Primary Schools under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, wherein, the teachers alone have suitable qualification and experience. Tlie Assistant Teachers are not suitable to the posts. Therefore, decision of the goverament is just aad proper and does not warrant any interference. The apprehension of the petitioner that impugned order is stigmatic has no basis as the petitioner has no ri^it to the pogt in borrowing department. It is simply a repatriation of the petitioner as Assistant Teachers do not have such qualification as required for the post in the borrowing departmeat. 12. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu