1 SBCivil Writ Petition No.3091/2010 Hemlata Kankariya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 15 th December, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. J.P.Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. P.R.Singh, for the respondents. .... While working with the department of Education, the petitioner was placed on deputation as resource person in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, District Rajsamand. By an order dated 28.7.2008, the petitioner was transferred from District Rajsamand to District Udaipur in Tehsil Girwa. Under an order dated 11.6.2009 the petitioner was sought to be repatriated to her parent department, however, validity of the same was challenged by her before this Court by way of filing a petition for writ (SBCivil Writ Petition No.6024/2009) and the writ petition aforesaid is yet pending consideration. An another order dated 9.3.2010 is now passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rajasthan Elementary Education Council relieving the petitioner to join duties in her parent department. A consequential order is also passed by the District Education Officer-cum-Officiating District Project Coordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Udaipur. Being 2 aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that repatriation of the petitioner is not simplicitor but stigmatic as she made disclosure of certain illegal deeds exiting in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. As per the petitioner she has been victimised being a whistle blower. The averments made in the petition for writ to substantiate the contention aforesaid reads as follows:- “16.That at this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner incurred displeasure of some officials in the department on account of the fact that the petitioner tried to highlight some irregularities committed by the higher officials in the department and so much so that the petitioner also submitted a complaint against some higher officials before the Commissioner, Physically Handicapped. Notice of the said application was issued to the Commissioner, Sarva Shikah Abhiyan, Primary Education Council, copy of which is also submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-6. 17.That the Commissioner, Physically Handicapped, after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the Commissioner, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Primary Education Council and after hearing all the parties found the officials responsible for 3 supervisory negligence and also held that specs were provided to children who did not require any specs and this was done to give undue benefit to the supplier. A copy of the report given by Commissioner, Physically Handicapped is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-7. 18.That considering the report submitted by Commissioner, Physically Handicapped and also after taking into consideration the recommendation made by him, the Additional Commissioner, Rajasthan Primary Education council vide his order dated 16.02.2010 informed the Commissioner, Physically Handicapped, Rajasthan Jaipur that disciplinary action is being taken against the guilty officials. A copy of the order dated 16.02.2010 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-8. 19.That since the petitioner has been responsible for exposing mis-deeds of the senior officials and on the complaint of the petitioner, disciplinary action has been initiated against the guilty officials. The respondents apprehending that the petitioner may further expose mis-deeds of other officials, with a wholly malafide intentions have now sought to transfer the petitioner from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Girwa, Udaipur to her parent department District Education Officer, Primary Education, District Rajsamand.” A reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents wherein certain details 4 about proceedings taken place in earlier petition for writ preferred by the petitioner are given in following terms:- “The submissions made in para (12) of the writ petition clearly reveals that the petitioner has initially filed the writ petition bearing No.6024/2009 challenging the order dated 11.6.2009, by which the petitioner services were repatriated to her parental department, but there was an ad- interim stay order in dforce is dated 22.6.2009, and a reply was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to 6 to the show cause notice and also filed the application for vacation of ad-interim stay order. That, initially the case was listed on the application for vacating the stay oprder on 17.8.2009 and on that day, this Hon'ble Court have extended the stay order for a period of 2 weeks. On an application, again the matter was listed in the Court on 9.9.2009 and the stay order, which was limited were not extended. ON 7.10.2009, the petitioner moved a Second Stay Petition, copy of the said stay petition was issued and the matter was listed on 14.10.2009 and on 14.10.2009, the matter was posted for 23.10.2009. On 23.10.2009, the matter was kept on 28.10.2009, till than the stay was never extended and neither existed on 28.10.2009. The matter was listed before the court and as per the order sheets the presence of the respondents counsel did not mark as he was not in the court and matter was taken out of the turn and it was ordered that “Put up next week. Interim order to 5 continue till then.” This part of the order sheet was not signed by the then Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.P.Gupta. However, when the counsel for the respondents went in Chamber of the then Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.P.Gupta and informed that there is no stay order in favour of the petitioner.” With the factual background as narrated above, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 9.3.2010 is an order consequential to the order dated 10.6.2009/11.6.2009, validity of that is already under consideration in SBCivil Writ Petition No.6024/2009, thus, this petition for writ is not maintainable. On merits too, it is contended that a deputationist is having no right to remain on deputation for an indefinite period and repatriation of such an employee is normal administrative phenomenon. It is asserted that no right of the petitioner is infringed on her repatriation to the parent organisation. Heard counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that by an order dated 10.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Rajasthan Elementary Education Council, Jaipur the petitioner was repatriated to her parent department and as a consequent thereto the District Education Officer (Elementary)-cum-Officiating District Project 6 Coordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan passed an order dated 11.6.2009 relieving the petitioner from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to join duties in parent department, i.e. the office of District Education Officer (Elementary) Rajsamand. To assail validity of the order dated 10.6.2009 and 11.6.2009 referred above the petitioner preferred a petition for writ (SBCivil Writ Petition No.6024/2009) and that is pending consideration before this Court. It is also not in dispute that no interim order is presently operating in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from relieving her to join duties with parent department. The order Anx.3 is not an order of repatriation as depicted by the petitioner, but is an order of relieving from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to join duties with parent department. The order dated 9.3.2010 and its consequential order passed by the District Education Officer-cum-Officiating District Project Coordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Udaipur, therefore, are in continuation to the orders dated 10.6.2009 and 11.6.2009 and are consequential thereto. The orders impugned in this petition for writ do not give any fresh cause of action to the petitioner as they are consequential to the earlier orders of repatriation. This petition for writ is not maintainable in view of the fact that cause sought to be agitated is already subjudiced in SBCivil Writ Petition No.6024/2009. 7 Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate all additional grounds taken in this petition for writ to challenge her repatriation to the parent department in SBCivil Writ Petition No.6024/2009. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.