CWP 13154/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH (1) SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13154/2009 Omprakash Matwa Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (2) SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13155/2009 Rajendra Khandelwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 22/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Vikrant Gupta for petitioners *** Since both the cases involve common question, are being decided by the present order. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners who are substantively holding the post of Sub Inspector and are members of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, at one time were sent on deputation to Jaipur Municipal Corporation on 06/10/2007 and 01/10/2008 respectively. However on completion of their 2 and 1 years of service on deputation, the Jaipur Municipal Corporation recommended their further extension of the period of deputation but the authority competent/employer did not consider their request and finally repatriated the petitioners and at the same time sent other two Sub Inspectors on deputation to Jaipur Municipal Corporation vide composite order dt. 09/10/2009. Counsel submits that the policy decision taken under standing order NO. 7/05 dt. CWP 13154/09 [2] 13/10/2005 and particularly paras 2 and 5 of the same have been violated by the respondents and one of the Sub-Inspectors, who was working in a special service wing, could not have been sent on deputation to Jaipur Municipal Corporation and apart from it, the minimum period of deputation is two years which could be further extended for one more year and, as such, the very decision taken by the respondents in repatriating the petitioners and sending other incumbents on deputation is in violation of the standing orders dated 13/10/2005. Counsel further submits that earlier when the incumbents were sent on deputation, they had worked three/four years and documents to this effect have also been placed on record in support thereof and in the absence of any reason being assigned taking decision for repatriation particularly when there is a recommendations made by the Jaipur Municipal Corporation and the borrowing authority wanted to continue the petitioner on deputation. In the opinion of this Court, none of the submissions made by the petitioners find merit for the reasons that a person, who is on deputation, which is always the will of the employer to allow the employee, who is CWP 13154/09 [3] substantively holding the post in his department to continue on deputation in the borrowing department and no right is conferred in favour of the employee to seek continuation on deputation in the borrowing department. Under Rule 144 and 144A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the total period of deputation is four years which could be further extended for a period of one year i.e. Five years in all but as already observed that no one can claim to continue on deputation as a matter of right. So far as the submission made by the counsel in regard to violation of standing orders dt. 13/10/2009 is concerned, these are only the guidelines laid down by the department to be normally followed when the employees are sent on deputation and if at all one of the Sub Inspectors, who is working in Special Service Wing, is sent on deputation and it violates the condition of standing orders dt. 13/10/2005, his deputation may be interfered but that will not improve the claim of the petitioners to continue on deputation in the Jaipur Municipal Corporation. So far as the last submission made with respect to the discrimination is concerned, suffice it to say that when the deputation cannot be claimed by the incumbent as a matter of right CWP 13154/09 [4] and is only an understanding between the lending and borrowing department to allow their employees to continue on deputation as provided under Rajasthan Service Rules and if that be so, it is always for the department to examine as to whether any continuation after the maximum period of deputation, can be allowed to continue but it is not the case before this Court. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-13154-CW-2009-final.doc