(^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.333 of 2009 APPELLANTS: (Petitioner) Dashrafh Patel, son of Shri Padmlochaa Patel, aged about 46 years, workiag as Block Research Coordmator Centre, Basna, Disfcrict Mahasamund (CG) Versiis RESPONDENTS: 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary/Under Secretary, Department of School Educatiou, Maatralaya, D.K.S. Bhavau, Raipur The Director, Rajeev Gaadhi Shiksha Mission, Pensiou Bada, Raipur (CG) The Collector & District Mission Dtrector, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) The District Projeet Officer, Coordiiiator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Missioa, Mahasamund, District Mahasamuud (CG) District Education Officer, Maliasamund, District Mahasaoiund (CG) Shii Gaiiesh RQJSI Jagat, Lecturer, GoveniBient Higher Secoadaiy SchooL Bhukel Block Basna, District Mahasamund (CG) Present: Shri B.P. Sharma witli Shri R,S. Patel, coimsel for the appellaat Shri Viaay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Suryakant Mishra, Paael Lawyer for thc State, Shri Pram.od Veiina, Sr. Advocate witli Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for respoxident No.6/caveator. Di^isiosa BeBch: Hosi^ble Shri Dhireadya Mishra & Hosa^ble 8hyi R<N< Chaxidrakar, JJ< ^ ^7; JUDGMENT (12-11-2009) 1. Witli the conseiit of fhe parties, fhe appeal was heard finally for disposal at fhe adiaission stage. 2. This wiit appeai is directed agaiast the order dated 4th Noveiiiber, 2009 passed ia W.P.(S) No.6300/2009 whercby the appeUant's petition agaiast t±ie order dated 27-10-2009 passed by respondent No.3, whereby fhe appellaiit has been repatriated to his parent departiiieut, has been disiiiissed. 3. The undisputed facts are that fhe appeUaiit joiaed as Block Resoiirce Central <3oordinator (for short 'BRCC") ia Rajiv Gaiidhi Shiksha Mission, Basna on 28-6-2007 on deputation. He was promoted as Head Master aud posted iii Girls Middle School, Bc^SDa vide order dated 22-9-2009 passed by the Distri.et Education Officer, Maliasamiind. Respondent No.4 vide his order dated 8-10-2009 directed fhe appellaat that after joiniag his promoted post at Govemment Middle School, Basna, he shali contmzie on fhe post of BRCC, Basna on deputatiou until fiiillier orders, In conipMaii.ee of the aforesaid order, fhe petitioner was relieved fronx the Goveminent Girls Middle School after his joinro.g as Head Master. He gave his joining as B.RCC, Block Resource Cesitre, Basna on 14-10-2009, Respoudeiit No,4 vide its order dated 27-10-09 repatdated fhe ser^ices of fhe petitioner to his parent departxiient by tlie mipugned order. 4. Shri B.P. Sharma, learaed counsel for tbe appeUant subinitted fhat fhe appellanfs deputation caiae to an end after he joined as Head Master in the Middle School, Basna on liis proraoted post and his period of deputation coiiixnences afresh aft.er he agaia jomed OB his "" ^ place of depiitation on 14-10-2009. In these cu'cumstaiices, the respondents ought to have allowed hiin to work for a period of at- least 2 yeers. Froin fhe note sheets aanexed with this niemo of appeal, it would be evident ftiat a proposal for his continuajice as BRCC for a siiaxioiiiisi period of 4 years up to June, 2011, was accepted by tlie CoUector on 8-10-09 and accordtagly, fhe order dated 8-10-2009 was passed. However, as per telephouic directions of the In-charge Mio.ist.er, fhe appeUaat's services have been repatdated aixd respondent No.6 has been posted in his place, as would be evident from ftie note sheet dated 24-10-09. He furfher argiied fliat interference with the autonosnous fiinctioiiing of the autono.mous bodies has been deprecated by the HonJ?ble Supi^me Coiirt iii catena of jiidginents. The observatious made in tbe judgmeut of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U,P, aiid Others {(2007)2 SCC (L&S) 806) are not appUcable in the facts of tlie present case. 5. Reliao.ee is placed in. the inatters of Pasxcliam Chia^id and others Versiss Sfcate of Himachal Pradesfe aaid Others1, Siiresh Chasadra Sharma Versixs Cliairmaia^ U.P. and othears2 and Uaioa of Isidia^ Thffoiigh GoverBssaeaat of Poadicheryy assd aiiother Versias V. Ramaferishsaan aad others3. 6. On tlie other hand, Shri Vinay Haxit, learaed counsel for the Sta-te argiied that leamed Sing.ie Judge has elabora.tely dealt with the entire aTgiiiiients advanced by leamed counsel for the appellarit is:i this appeal while passiiig fhe mipugned order, The petition has been M ^- '- (2008) 7 SCC 1 17 2(2005)3 SCC 153 3 (2005) 8 SCC 394 ^ dismissed after considering the settled prmciples of law witli regard to repatriation aad right ofdeputationist. 7. Shri Praraod Verma, learaed senior coiinsel for respondent N0,6 appearing. on caveat submitted fhat as per the order dated 2nd April; 2009 passed by tlie School Edzication Department filed along witli caveat appMcation (Annexurc-C/3), fhe post of Block Resource c-00rdiiiator is to be fltled on deputation froni fhe categoxy of lecturer or equivalent cadre. The appeUaat has been adxriittedly promoted to the post of Head Master, which is not equivalent category of lecturer and, tlierefore, he could not have been posted on deputation as Block Resource Coordiiiator at Basna. 8, We have heard learaed counsel for the parties. We have perused fhe ixxipugned order as also tlie niemo of appeal. 9< In the niatter of Siaresh Chax&dra Sharssaa (Supra), the HonT^le Supx^nxe Co^rt considering the critical report of tJie Comnnttee regardiag large scale iiiterference with autonoiaoiis functionHig of fhe Electiicity Board, expressed its aiiguish and issued certaiii directions iri paTa-8 of the jiidgnient restraining iaterference of the Goveminent Officers in fhe affairs of toraasfer/postiiig in aay of fbe Coi'porations mentioned iii the order. 10.In the matter of Paaxcham Chasad aaid others (Supra) also, the Honyble Suprenie Court deprecated interference of fhe political executives in the functioniag of Regional Transport Authority. llJn the matter ofV. Ramaferisl&aasa asid others (Siipra), m para-32, it has been held tlius:- "Ordixiarily, a deputationist has no legal right to contixnie in tlie post. A deputationist uidisputably has ^ no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. However, fhere is no bar thereto as well. It iiiay be tnie that when deputation does not result ixi absorption ia the service to which aa officer is deputed, no recniitiment ia its true ioiport and signilicaace takes place as he is continued to be a member of fhe parent ser^ice. When fhe teniire of deputatiou is specified, despite a depiitatiouist not havm.g an iiidefeasible right to hold the said post ordiaarily the term of depiitation sho'sild not be curtailed except on such jiist grounds as, for example, unsiiitability or unsatisfactoiy perfonaance. Biit, even where the tenure is not spectfied, aii order of reversion can be questioned when fhe sarae is iiiala fide. An action taken ia a post-haste ixiariner also iadicates malice." 12.In the mstaiit case, from the note sheet dated 24-10-2009, it reveals fhat the concemed lu-charge Miaister of tb.e district coiifabiilated wifh the CoUector and directed hiai to post respondent N0,6, lecturer, as BRCC iii place of fhe appellaut aiid thereafter the order of repetdation dated 27-10-09 has been passed. IS.Leamed Smgle Judge, after elaborately referring to fhe various judgments of fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court, has concluded tliat contuiuation of the einployees on deputation or repatriation on completioii of deputation period does not depend on fheir consent. After completion of imnimum. period of deputatioiiy they xnay be repatiiated back to the parent department, The judginent ia tlie case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad (Supra) has been referred with approval ia which it has been held fhat fhe fcraasfer order caunot be assailed only on ftie ground that the same has been passed on reconiiiiendation of any MLA. It atl depends upon facts aad circunistaiices ofthe case. (\oj 14/The basic principle underlyixig deputation itsetf is fhat tlie persou concemed can ahvays aad at any time be repatriated to his parent departaient to serve in his substaiitive position fhereia at fhe iiistaiice of either of fhe departaients aiid there is no vested right in such a peison to contmue for long on deputation or get absorbed m. tbe departnient to which he had gone on deputation. ReMaixce is placed m the matter of Kunal Nasida Versus Uiiiosi of Isadia aiad aiaother4. 15 That apart, froni the order dated 2nd April, 2009 available with tlie caveat petition as Annexure-C/3, it appears tliat oxily lecturers or equivalent officers/eniployees are to be appoiiited on deputation as Block Resource Coordniator whereas, the appeUant is admittedly a Head Master. 16.Therefore, takiiig mto consideration fhe settied priiiciples of law regaixliag right of deputationist that he has no vested right to contiiiiie or to be afosorbed on the post of deputation and also considenog the poUcy decision of the Goveniinent for appointing on deputation on the post of Block Resoiirce Coordinator, we are of the opiiiion that no interference is waiTaated in fhe inipugned order only on the ground fhat fhe order of repatdation was passed as per dii*ections ofthe In-charge Miiiister. 17.In the result, tbe appeal is wifhout any siibstance, the saoie deser^es to be aud is accoxdiagly dismissed in limine, Barve Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge (2000) 5 SCC 362