IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8527 of 2008 SURESH PRASAD SHARMA, SON OF LATE MOHAN PRASAD SHARMA,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AARARI, TEMPLE ROAD,P.S. BARARI,DISTRICT BHAGALPUR--PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE EDUCATION PROJECT COUNCIL, BELTRON BHAWAN, SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR-CUM-DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT COUNCIL, PURNEA. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT, PURNEA. --- RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 4.5.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Annexure-3, passed by the District Education Officer, Purnea-cum- Chairman of the Bihar Education Project Council dated 8.5.2008 by which the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department. The petitioner was deputed in the year 1999 to work in the Bihar Education Project Council at Purnea. Eight persons had come to this Court challenging the order by which the District Officer-cum-Chairman, Bihar Education Project Council, Purnea had repatriated them to their parent department. This Court while considering the claims and counter claims of the petitioner and the State vide order dated 16.7.2004 passed the following order: 2 “In the opinion of this Court such procedure is not permissible under the law. When the posts are occupied by the deputationists and the reservation policy would apply prospectively, then to apply the policy from a future date, the persons who are on deputation, cannot be sacrificed under the garb of repatriation. The respondents would not be entitled to repatriate the petitioners on the ground that they want to observe the policy of the State Government. The order contained in Annexure B to the counter affidavit for the reasons aforesaid deserves to and is accordingly quashed. It is, however, made clear that if for any reason germane to the principle of repatriation, the respondents want to repatriate the services of these persons then they would be free to take action in accordance with law. It is also made clear that reservation policy being prospective, the respondents, if they continue with these eight petitioners then they would not be committing any wrong nor would be violating the reservation policy so adopted by the State Government.” The submission on behalf of the petitioners that despite the order passed by this Court again the Chairman of the Bihar Education Project Council, Purnea has issued Annexure-3 by which the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department on the ground that the reservation policy has to be adhered to. On the very issue, this Court 3 had interfered and cancelled the order of repatriation, holding that a deputationist cannot be recalled unless it is for valid reasons as discussed by the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the State submits that there are only three posts in the Bihar Education Project Council in the district of Purnea. It is submitted that five persons were working and their names have been mentioned at Annexure-3 in the order of seniority. The Council has retained two persons and repatriated the services of three persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the judgment of this Court and the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the petitioner who is the third most senior person also ought to be retained in service and ought not to be sent back to his parent department, which is sick unit. Considering the facts aforesaid and the order of this court passed earlier on 16.7.2004 quoted above, the impugned order (Annexure-3) passed by the District Education Officer, Purnea-cum-Chairman of 4 the Bihar Education Project Council is quashed. This writ application is thus, allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)