o y IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETn-CON fS) N0.5?6^ OF 2011 PE1IIIONER RESPONbENTS : ^ > y->^: ..^^%; ^s>^<^' ^ .0.--" 'y ;! — , '"y ^. ff8»n Si ^ms- : ^ C.N.Singh S/o. Shri J.N. Manjhi, Aged about 42 years, Presently posted as Joint Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur Division Distt. Bilaspur (C.6.) VERSUS /l. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C6). ^ 2. Director,Agriculture. Directorate of Agriculture. Raipur. (C.6.) ^3. Shri S.C. Padam (age and father's name not known to the petitioner) presently posted as Joint Director, C.G.Rajya Beej Vikas Nigam, Beej Bhawan Telibandha. Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETCTEON UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON QFINDIA ^.Aa 3Tte^. /y ''" - -x -'i^ ^ 'W . ^^i ^^^7 §3 mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR A^ l6-ll-ze'V PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5567 of2011 C.N.Singh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 and2. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (Passed on 16 dayofNovember, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure P/), whereby, the petitioner working as Joint Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur, has been transferred to Indira Gandhi Rrishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (for short 'IGKW'), on the post of Deputy Registrar. 2. Shri Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee ofAgriculture Department ofthe State of Chhattisgarh and by the impugned order, he has been transferred to a different establishment which is not permissible under the law. Thus, it can be inferred that the petitioner has been sent on deputation and that too, without obtaining his consent. 3. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that the impugned transfer was made on account of administrative exigency. He &J 9 farther submits that the IGKW, is also under the conto-ol of the State Govemment, Department ofAgriculture, therefore, there was no need of any consent of the petitioner before transferring him to the IGKW. He further submits that the post ofDeputy Registrar is an En cadre post of Agriculture Department. Thus, there is no infirmity in transferring the petitioner from Agriculture Department to IGKW. 4. The Chhattisgarh Agricultural (Gazetted) Services Recmitment Rules, 2011 was made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, regulating the service conditions of all the Agrioultural (Gazetted) officers. In Schedule-I annexed to the rules, wherein the setup of the officers has been provided, there is no post of Deputy Registrar in Agriculture Department. Thus, the contention of the leamed counsel for the State that the post of Deputy Registrar, Agricultural University, is an En-Cadre post, is not correct. Shri Bhaduri relies on a letter dated 14.07.2006 (Annexure R/l-1) ofthe State Govemment, wherein the setup of the University has been given. In respect ofDeputy Registo-ar, there are two sanctioned posts, one is to be appointed on deputation from the post of Joint Director, Agriculture and the other, from academics. Further, reliance of the State on minutes of the proceedings, which is an intemal procedure, that employee of IGKW have been mentioned against fhe Additional Director, Joiat Director and Deputy Director. Thus, it became En-cadre post, is without any basis. Mentioning a post ofIGKW against the post of State employee indicate that one may be posted in the University on deputation, the post ofDeputy Registrar, Agriculture University, and it does not make one En-cadre post 5. In view of the foregoing, admittedly, the petitioner working as Joint Director, Agricultyre, has been posted on the post ofDeputy Registrar, IGKW on deputation. 6. Law on deputation has clearly been defmed by this Court in Azad Mohammad Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another , si0.er placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. 7. The word 'deputation' has been considered in State of Punjab & Others v. Inder Singh & Others wherein, the Supreme Court, observed as under: "18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised 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 fhe expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless m the meanwhile he has eamed 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 cau be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, knov/ his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite '2008 (2) BLJ 47 2 (1997) 8 SCC 372 '»^sa[a% ^y'^sS^, llf ff . '*' c '•:.K. 1 :1 s ^ settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above...." 8. The Supreme Court, in Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar & Another , the word 'deputation' has been defmed in the following terms: "8. 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 organisation (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (conunonly 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 ofthe employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not." Further, in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India & Another , the Supreme Court held as under: 10. "6....The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concemed can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation..." In Prasar Bharti & Others v. Amarjeet Singh & Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "13. There exists a distinction between "transfer" and "deputation". "Deputation" 3 (1999) 4 SCC 659 4 (2000) 5 SCC362 5AIR2007SC1269 -^f-S f€^?^ ^ connotes service outside the cadre or outside the parent department in which an employee is serving. "Transfer", however, is limited to equivalent post in the same cadre and in the same department. Whereas deputation would be a temporary phenomenon, ta-ansfer being antithesis must exhibit the opposite indications." 11. Applying the well settled prmciples of law to the facts of the case on hand, wherein the ta-ansfer of the petitioner to the IGKW comes within the definition of deputation, and the impugned order has been passed without the consent of the petitioner, the order is bad and unsustainable in law. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure P/l) in respect of the petitioner, is quashed. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. 13. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit