IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.669 of 2011 1. SARYU PASWAN, son of late Yadu Paswan, resident of village-Titnav (Bara) P.S. Atari, District-Gaya. 2. Kundan Kumar Singh, son of Sri Bholan Prasad Singh, resident of village- Bhotiya, P.S. Simari Bakhtiyarpur,District- Saharsa. 3. Gajendra Kumar Bharti, son of Sri Anant Paswan, resident of village- Rajani,P.S.Muraliganj,District-Saharsa. 4. Dr. Sanjay Sinha, son of late H.N. Sinha, resident of Shanti Niketan, Yarpur, Patna, P.S. Jakkanpur, District-Patna. ….. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Primary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Bihar State Education Council Patna, through its State Project Director, Bihar State Education Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shashtri Nagar, Patna. 4. The State Project Director, Bihar State Education Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shashtri Nagar, Patna. 5. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Administrative Officer, Bihar Education, Project Council, Patna, Beltron Bhawan, Shastrinagar, Patna. 7. The District Programme Co-ordinator-cum-District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda. 8. The District Programme Co-ordinator cum District Superintendent of Education, Purnea. 9. The District Programme Co-ordinator cum District Superintendent of Education, Katihar. 10. The District Programme Co-ordinator cum District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur……. Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate For respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr.Surya Kant Kumar,Advocate ----------- 2. 18.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 as also learned counsel for the State. The petitioners seek a direction upon the respondents for their reinstatement as Additional District Programme Co-ordinator. The admitted facts of the case are that - 2 - the petitioners along with others, being teachers of Primary and Middle Schools of the State Government, were deputed as Additional District Programme Co-ordinator in the year 2007 in the Bihar Education Project Council on the basis of an advertisement. The appointments by letter dated 19.1.2007 of the Bihar Education Project Council were made on deputation basis for a period of three years or on the completion of the project, which ever was earlier. It was also stated therein that the contract of appointments could be terminated at any time upon giving one month’s notice. The said letter provided that the term of contract could be extended but the decision in that regard of the Council shall be final. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners joined in the month of January,2007 and, accordingly, their contractual period was completed in the month of January, 2010. The petitioners rely upon the proceedings of the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Bihar Education Council held on 11.12.2009 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Bihar, in which a decision was taken to repatriate those persons to their parent department, whose works - 3 - were not found to be satisfactory but to ensure that the same does not affect the work it should be done in a phased manner. Subsequently, the works of some of the deputationists were found to be unsatisfactory and as many as fifteen of them were recommended for being repatriated. So far as the petitioners are concerned, their services were not found unsatisfactory and they were recommended to be continued on deputation. In the meantime, a letter dated 11.11.2010 was issued from the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar referring to the fact that No Objection Certificate was being sought by the Bihar Education Project Council with respect to various Assistant Teachers for their continuing on deputation. It was stated in the said letter that since from 1.4.2010 the Right to Education Act, 2009 has been enforced, hence, the Primary School Teacher cannot be permitted to work on non- education work and accordingly, it is not possible to issue No Objection Certificate for their working on deputation in such works. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the appointment letters of the - 4 - petitioners stated that their extension in service was solely at the discretion of the Bihar Education Project Council and the Council had recommended for their continuance on deputation, hence, it was not proper for the Human Resources Department to have not granted No Objection Certificate for their continuance on the basis of deputation. It is submitted that there are other teachers also on deputation in this Project itself but not action has been taken with respect to them. Learned counsel for the respondent Bihar Education Project Council, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have no right to continue on deputation and it is open to the parent employer, namely, the State Government, which had loaned their services on deputation, to recall them at any time. He urged that the petitioners, having completed three years service on deputation in terms of the letter dated 19.1.2007, have no right to continue further against the wishes of their parent department. With respect to their allegation of discrimination, it is contended by learned counsel that only two persons out of 50 such - 5 - deputationists are continuing but in their cases the extension was granted in the month of May, 2010 itself, since there was no objection on behalf of the State Government at that particular point of time. Learned counsel also relies upon a decision dated 12.5.2010 of a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.6465/2010: Sushil Kumar and others vs. The State of Bihar and others and its analogous cases, in which after considering the cases of those petitioners, this Court has held that the petitioners of those cases have no right to continue as deputationists; more so, after the Right to Education Act has come into force, the State Government cannot afford to allow its teacher force to remain on deputation in any department, not connected with teaching work. On a consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties, this Court does not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is evident that the petitioners had been working on deputation and a deputationist does not have any right to continue on the post, apart from what is stated in the order appointing - 6 - him on deputation. The order dated 19.1.2007 clearly provided that the appointments on deputation basis would be for a period of three years and any extension thereafter was at the sole discretion of the Council. However, the said letter dated 19.1.2007 was with respect to the right of the Education Project Council vis-à-vis the petitioner and not with respect to the right of the parent employer, namely, the State Government. It was not open to the Education Project Council to continue the petitioners beyond the period of three years without obtaining the approval of the State Government. If the State Government has refused to issue No Objection Certificate and wants their services to be repatriated, they can do the same. Thus, the petitioners do not have any right to continue on deputation until the closure of the Project contrary to the wishes of the parent employer and the Organization in which they have been sent on deputation. It is trite that in the case of a deputation three parties are involved, namely, the parent employer, the employee and the organization to which their services are to be loaned and - 7 - unless all the three parties are agreed upon the said deputation, no such deputationist can either be permitted or allowed to continue beyond the initial agreed period. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )