i ^ t_ •S .F;lili ^ ^(Oot >• ^•'.-^-^••l,-L- •I...^.-L.-L-L-v .^.^, ^i'i'fl'y' ^sr •Tyi'yid'y ^crnTiM-'iG "Rciixay C@.TT.) W.P.(S) 82-( /200g:?~ ST^T cTI?T 'EI-^crsft cR? •^t.3n7.-q't,cien •gn- ?(TpTTT 41 c[^- -®ns'BTtcT ia*1'q<y<T> Rcbld -ZsTOS *^1rt ^? :eT3flcT TTfEfl- -ftTSTT 1?I9T:T 31<*>o1d-dl 13T5TT <ni''.rt''n< 'EffqT (^S.TT.) .AIlRlcblcbdf ^ ®.TT. yiliH-1 stTCT 1. i9"-c|l<'t* ?ftcR 1tTWT tH'c)-iicl<y •g.ir. <i'4y 2. Sf^TZ ^HRcl 0.TT. SllTH-1 "ecBcT itrerr I^TPT 3. cbcichlii T?cT •RrcTT f'-KII ^•C|IOI<D 7T3fl?T ^TfEfT-RreTT'P'Rr^ ^^ ^^-^ ^" ^i-^e^--" ^•"'A'i^---'"-" '•'~ J^'''^'\.-''' ^v'\r.'--"" '^"" dTlT:C11t{1''l"l 'jii>3i''n</^iLii ®.^T. ,/c°^l ^° „ CTT^5T/€te 'yj-R|cbl_M'rl.'rd 3ig,^<< WtSSl^iSK-: Priya HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Slngte Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Petittoner Respondents W. P.No. 821 OF 2007 Arjun Lal Chandravanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others. PRESENT:- Ms. Meenu Banerjee, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. for State. ORAL ORDER (9tt»February, 2007) 1. Learned counsel for the petittoner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Teacher. Prior to appointment of Asstt, Teacher, the petitioner vide order dated 10.2.2004 was appointed as Block Resource Co- ordinator in Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Pandariya against vacant post. Thereafter vide order dated 1 .1 V.2004, (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was sent as Asstt. Teacher, Primary Schooi, Block Bodta, Distt. Kabirdham on deputation. On 15.1.2006, the deputation period of the petitioner came to an end and the petitioner was posted back to his original place at Akaltara. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.11.2006 on the ground that this tantamounte to frequent transfers. 2. On examination of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that this is not a case of transfer but this is a case of cancellation of the deputation on completion of 2 years. The counset have not made out in the case as to why deputation should not be recalled after completion of 2 years. The petition lacks material facts. Even otherwise, there is no indefeasible right accrued in favour of the petitioner to continue forever on a deputation post. This Coun in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain such a petition where no infringement of any right has been alleged or claimed. 2. This petiUon is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge