IN THE HLGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. ^M /05 PETITIONER ^^w! oA---" '.^:?s^- ^y-^ ^' RESPONDENTS .^'&;''"~. "*'»>&.. •;.%l!slr3'?^%v y ^'^•^ \ / 2, T.R. Sidar, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri -Shrilal Sidar, Posted as Block Resource Co-ordinator (BRC), (Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission) Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, R/o - VUlage Bodadih, Post GendapaU, Tehsil - BUaigarh, District:- Raipur, (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) State Mission Du-ector, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur (C.G.). Collector, Raipur, (C.G.). District Education Officer, Raipur, (C.G.). Shri Satyanarayan Sahu, Upper Division Teacher - Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bilaigarh, District - Raipur, (C.G.). WRIT PETITIONTJNDER ARTCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDUMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: y9 ^3. ^^^fll 'i'l^""y^^ Wi XI-HC-78 \dwc|.-<4ioirto, yTil-d'ifi, Rrti'(iy< / ^ ^<'7-/trT *ll*l«laEi'TTq? W^200 3TT^?T (R^ (*jc|fjc|<{;) an^^rwR'fi'ii ?[2IT3II^STd><<i<|i g'RniiR^ffSCTsn^ST 4-4-2006 <bfyfd41-1 Kl«1d)^'fe'<l '<lu)tC]'< ^3lf^q3II^?r Shri Ranbir Singh wit4 Shri Sumit Jhanwar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawalfra, Qovt. Adv. for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 4. j Shri Prateek Sbarma, Ajdv. for the respondent No. 5. Heard. I The petitioner, who i^ Upper Division Teacher, is an employee of School Educati<|>n Department. His services were taken on deputation to Raje^v Oandhl Shiksha Mlssion for one year as per order dated 7-6-2[002 Annexure P-2. He served there for about 4% years. Thereafjter as per order dated 18- 11-2005 Annexure P-1, respondent po. 5 Satyaaarayan Sahu, Upper Divlsion Teacher, has been |sent as Block Goordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bil^igarh, Distt. Raipur. The petitioner chaUenged the said orderoi^ training and his services wifl be veiy beneficial for the Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Leamed counsel for thd has only been passed with contended that it is against t|ae transfer policy. the ground fhat he has acqulred petittoner submits that there is no order regarding posting of p|etitioner. The Order Armexure P-1 respect to respondent no. 5. It is _J XI-HC-78 dCT|'<<l«lrt't<,y-(l)<9<lfi,f6|«my<( ^Wvffi ^TT^ 3TI^?T qa<P (ljc|(j6|^) W^ 200 SITSaTOTR-ii'b WITa)rt?Tri'*<i<b s'RirsR'iiBd an^?T pers^ns Retum has been filed b^ been stated that the petitione.j Annexure P-1 for a period of there for about 4 years. It is State that a person shoi-ild contended that the order has| of service. The other opportunities should be given) the order has been passed Minister, School Education. of respondent No. 5 Annexurjs Annexure P-4 dated 17-1-: State Oovemment, and theilel transfer policy. It is also con^ respondent no. 5 has alreadyljomed The Respondent no. 5 the petitioner has been repatifiated not transferred, that too aflter submitted that because of petitioner is working and restwndent gettuig salary since last 5 or 6j order Armexiire P-1, there is| petitioner to his parent depar|tinent. Itlis 19$6 \ cpi«ifn41i•<!fnY^'(«'<£)'(RK^I'! ^aif^rsil^a respondent no. 2 in which it has was sent on deputation vide order (?ne year whereas he has remamed c<i>ntended that it is the choice of the be posted wherever. It is also ! been passed because of exigencies are also to be tralned and to all. It is further contended that after due coordination with the further contended that the order P-l took its place wlfh regard to with due coordination with the ilefore there is no violation of the [:ended that pursiant to the oi-der, as per Annexure R-2/1. also filed retum. It is stated that to hls parent department and more than three years. It is |stay granted by this Court £he no. 5 fhough joined is not months. It is contended that in the an endorsement for relieving the hfas patifiated D/ u XI-HC-78 \d-cq -"qiqirt^, UiTll-<1<ia, Rrtl'(-iy< TFMI^TT^ 3TT^9T ira^ ('jctijcl.ti) W^200 SII^CTqiTR'litb aaiT3I1^?Td)*li* S:RIT8R^rt^I3n^?T It is a settled lawthatl Gontinue on deputation or borrowiag departiitent, unl^ss covered by a statutory provisi^n. In Kunal Nfmda vs. TOdton ofJndfa and another reported the deputationist has no right to )o claim. permanent absorption ui his permanent absorption is in 200WSt SCC362, the Hon| cdtmat stafutory "A deputattonist clami for permanei^ where he iimrks ort based upon a having the farce always and cct any |tmie department, at th^ depcatment or pca^i vested right in. sud^ deputcction or depccrtment. * SCJ 18, the Hon.Supreme C|3urt held as under: N 'OrdincaUy the to contmue in indisputdbly has post to wfuch he i^ no bccr thereto as| when deputcction in fhe service to recruitment in fts 'ffiiFn'fli *ii*inl *t lstcl '(rjl'tdl't ^srt^rgn^sT . Supreme Court held as under: cissert and succeed in fas |t cibseapiwm. in the department deputation, vnless his clcum te rule, regulation or order |o/ lccw. A deputationist can be Tepatnatedto fais pccrent mstance of etther barrawing |ent depccrtment. There is no aperson to contmuefor long on absorbed in borrcwmg det In Urdon of Indta thiwuah Goot. of PonSleherru and cinothw os. V. Jtcuncdcrfsfcnjan cawl etfcers reported in 2005(8) detiutcitiomst has no legal right tjte post. A d.eputationist ^o right to be absorbed m the deputed. Hawever, thsre is well. R may be true that <|ioes noit result in atosorption ufiferfi an offwer is depwted, no \true impart and signyvxmce t-^ L XI-HC-78 >dwi '^wm<i, yTil'd'Ks, Rrti'iiy'; *ii*irii a»1qrq» sn^?T traq; (i^iijci^i) W^200 3II^9TcBlR-fit|» asn3ii^sTd>*i ir P/H- s^nw^ritCTan^OT takes place as he of the parent deputa^on is spec^ rwt having an uidej\ post, ordinanty th^ not be curtcaled for excanple, perfonnance. But, speafied, an questioned when actibn taken in indicates mcdice.' fe continued to be a member When the tenwe of desptte a deputationst 'ast&te right to hold the scad term of deputcction shauld ^ept on sudhjustgrounds as, ^iitcilnltty or unsattsfactory ^vett where the tenure is not of reversion can be jhe same te ma!a jffete. An post haste manner also serf/ice. ipecped, exc^ept lOTSUlt oriS.er In the mstant case, the| |was sent for deputation fpr |about four years. fa that vlew) |for any interference in the on^i So far as the posting |open to fhe petitioner to |competent authority and if i i|?rt4Trf (fl+1rtT^ffe^ l(Fjt<-^l*i ^ari^i'aiT^sT tenn has expu^d. The petitioner o^ie year and he remained there for ofthe matter, no case is made out sr dated 18/11/2005 (Annex.P/1). ai(d other rellefs are concemed, it is u^ake a representation before the ^uch a representation is niade, it id on its own nierits in accordance shall be considered an^ decid{ wlthlaw. With the aforesaid oltservations, this pefiition stands disposed of. Consequentiy, aU the disposed of. pending applications also stand Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge