“V.“ c w; (D IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR - WRIT PETITIONS) N3; SWBOF 2009 33W§§LE wggggjéi Chinmoy Choudhaly, Aged About— 43 Years; .S/o— Shri . C.R. Choudhary, Occupation- Service-Working as Assistant Director, Directorate, Employment and Training, Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER: VERSUS M, RESPONDENT(S): 1. Statje; of Chha'ttisgarh / 3. Director, Employment and « Training, Raipur (co) 4. Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Labour and Employment, Shrani Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi (E26?) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w Through Secretary, .gwA Department of Technical Education, D.K.S. Mata Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Ag. WJlxég iAwm Sachiv, Takniki Shiksha, ‘ Janshakti Niyojan Vigyan ‘Aywam Prodigiki , Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) @ HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTESIEARH AT B!LA$PUR (Han. Mr. Ju$tice Pritinker Diwaker) W.P.($) No. 5743 of 2009 petitioner. Shri AV. Sridhar, PL for the State/respondents; N0.t to 3. Shri Kasif Shakeel, counsel for respendent No.4 G R D E R (1&092011; Challenge in the present petitton is to the order dated 01.09.2009 Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No.2 sending the petitioner on deputatian from the poet of Aset. Director (Empioyment) to Aeett. Director (Training S.P.i.U). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the substantive post of the petitioner is Asstt. Director and he was working with Director, Empioyment and Training, Raipur. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the office of Employment and Training is governed and regulated by Chhattisgarh Employment Service (Gazettecl) Recruitment Rules, 2005 (for short the “Rules, 2005'”) whereas, the employees of i.T.l are regulated and governed by the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Ruies, 2005 (for short the “l.T.l. Rules“) . 3. Learned counsei for the ioetitioner submits that in the schedule, there is no post of Asstt. Director or any other post which is transferable to the Asstt. Direotor from one department to another. He further submits that the petitioner has been sent on deputation from one department to another without his consent and the said order is not permissible under the law. It has been further Petiticner Chinmcy Choudhary VERSUS Respcndents State of Chhattisgarh and others PreEant: Shri Vinay Pandey, caunsel for the argued that the paint involved in the case has already been decided by this Court in W.P.S Nos.5745/200Q & 5812/2009. 4. In the return fiied by the respondents, it has been stated that in the impugned order, the word ”Deputation" has been mentiened on acceunt of mistake whereas, the order impugned is infact transfer order of the petitiener. Further, it has been argued by the State counsel that the Director of LTJ and the Employment 84 Training is one and the same, the services between the two departments can always be interchanged and the same cannot be termed to be a deputation but transfer. On being questioned about the posts interchangeable underthe Ruies, iearned counsel for the respondents could not respond to the same. More so, the Rules also do not go to show that the employees of two categories governed by different rules can be transferred from one department in question to the other. 5. it is settled position of law that an employee cannot be sent on deputation from one department to another without obtaining his consent and thus, the order impugned sending the petitioneton deputation without his consent deserves to be set aside. Furthermore, if the same is a transfer order as stated by the State counsel, transfer from one department to another is also not permissible. / 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed, Order dated 01.09.2009 Annexure P-1, so far as it relates to the petitioner, stands quashed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker" Judge