AFK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR" “ g/ ’ Writ Petition (S) No. 3388 of 2007 PETITIONER : Kamal Narayan Chandrakar S/o Shri Arjun Lal Chandrakar, Aged about 43 years, Presently working as a Block Resource Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2.The Managing Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, ‘ Akikrit Bhawan, Ilnd Floor, Pension Bada, Raipur (CG). 3. The Collector, District Mahasamund (CG). 4. District Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) // Present : Shri Anup Majurndar, Advocate for the petitioner. <. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 04‘“ or April, 2008) . The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 05.05.2007 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, Whereby, the petitioner was repatriated back to the Education Department on being found not suitable on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Mahasamund. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was sent on deputation for a period of three years on 08.08.2005. Before completion of the period of three years i.e. 07.08.2008, the petitioner was repatriated back to the education department on the ground that the petitioner being Assistant Teacher is not qualified to be sent on deputation on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator/Assistant Programme Coordinator on 05.05.2007 (Annexure P/l). Shri Anup Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 05.05.2007 be quashed as it is stigmatic holding that the petitioner does not posses the required qualification. Secondly, the order recalling back the services of the petitioner from the deputation is without consent of the petitioner as well as without consent of the employer. Thus, /w, F . the impugned order is bad in law on the ground that the petitioner was recalled back to the parent department before completion of the period of deputation, which cannot be done without substantive reasons. . Per contra, Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 & 4 would submit that the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan of Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, all the Primary Schools were up-graded to Upper Primary Schools. The Teachers required earlier for the Primary Schools were Assistant Teachers like the petitioner. They were, accordingly, deputation but after up-gradation of the Primary Schools to Upper Primary Schools, more qualified teachers are required. The petitioner, being Assistant Teacher, has been repatriated back on the ground of up gradation of the Schools. As per guidelines of Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, "W rater ear W: (at) W H31 Elma 3mm (a) W Wen 1t WW Wm/term/notarWl (a) wwwmwmm earlier the qualification was as under: (a) W$u%WWWI" 5. Thereafter, after upgradation, the qualification of Block Resource Coordinator is as under: We rater W W: 31W 1. marten mate/Harm, 1d Warm mar/WWI Wu 2. WWumagwar‘tmqfam—cm 3. mwamwwmmw 4. mammartww’r' . In View of the policy decision of the State Government, it became necessary to recall back all the Assistant Teachers to the Education Department and the Teachers who are having qualification required for Block Resource Centre Coordinator remains there on deputation. . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that it is not a case of simplicitor repatriation before completion of the deputation period. @. . Hon’ble the Supreme Court Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others] while considering the deputation and repatriation to the parent cadre/department on expiry of period of deputation held as under :- “18. The concept of “deputation” is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. “Deputation” has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word “deputation” is of no help. In simple words “deputation” means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above ............. ” 9. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and anotherz has defined ‘deputation’ in the following terms:- “Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such service by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not.” 10.In the case of an employee,if his suitability to the post is under question because of misdemeanor or other conduct or other reasons, the borrowing department may repatriate the employee to the parent department prematurely or parent department may consider to repatriate the deputationist 1 (1997) 8 SCC 372 2 (1999) 4 s.c.c. 659 prematurely. (See Judgment dated 04.04.2008, passed in W.P. No. 2298/2008 (Ajay Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), and connected matters). 11. It is clear from the return flled by the State Government that the State Government has taken a decision to upgrade Primary Schools to Upper Primary Schools under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, wherein, the teachers alone have suitable qualification and experience. The Assistant Teachers are not suitable to the posts. Therefore, decision of the government is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. The apprehension of the petitioner that impugned order is stigmatic has no basis as the petitioner has no right to the post in borrowing department. It is simply a repatriation of the petitioner as Assistant Teachers do not have such qualification as required for the post in the borrowing department. r. 12. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l l Sahu