;fa( IN THE HIGH COURT 01= 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR fGHHAtTISGArtHV W. P. N0.3o OF 2004 PETITIONER .x^^ ^^3^ .-'''.••'^:'^-lly O ^-''^t ^ Dr. Ravindra Nath-Mishra, S/o Dr. N.K. Mishra,a9ed about 47 years, Occupation-Service, presently Director Physical Education, R. Ravishgnkar University, Raipur [C.G] ^^ ^y^' 'l<<^""- - ^iffiESPONDE VE RS U S 1. State ofChhattisgarh through TTie Seeretary, Department of HigherEducation,Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur {Chhaffisgarh] 2. Pandit Ravishankar University, Through its Registrar, Raipyr [Chhattisgarh] 3. Prakash Singh Tliakur,Sports OfRcer, Devendra Nagar KanyS Mahavidyalaya (Private Coltege), Devendra Nagar Raipur {ChhaWsgarh] ^WMT PETmON UNDER ARTIGLE 226 OF THE >,eC>NSTTrUTION':^IND3^ NATUREOFGEI^GRAI^MANWUWUS^ROiflXBn^N^^^A^ 'OTiiE^ SUrrABt^^SWRil^^G^lwWt^ DIRECtlON (» DUtECtlON&ORDERORORDERSs ' 'a fl Sl The petitioner, above-named, most respectfully begs to submjt as under: PARTICULARSOfTHe PETITIONER: As mehtioned in the Gause Titleabcwe. PARTIGULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As mentioned in the Cause Title above. il 'Jr~s°'~:V~:^ '^..J'^' J^-i.. "t. iiS'^ ^3 Ei ^fiP^a r\ '^^s^" ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AF^ :y WRIT PETITION No. 3078 of 2004 PETITIONER DR. Ravmdra Nath Mishra. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. •M. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on ./2.. .day ofMay, 201 1 Sd/- Satish I^. Agnihotri Judge SSsfK'y- •li ^'••Ki.SSi-—. 1 u^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 3078 of 2004 Dr. Ravindra Nath Mishra. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Arvind Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriSafish Gupta, Govemment Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1. Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Shri Sourabh Dangi,'Advocate for the respondent No. 3. (Delivered on . ./Z-..day ofMay, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 28.8.2004 (Amiexure P/l), 01.09.2004(Annexure P/2) and 28.08.2004 (Annexure P/3) and further seeks a declaration that the same may be held as illegal and inoperative. A direction is further sought to contmue the petitioner as Director, Physical Education, till expiry ofnormal period ofdeputation offouryears. The facts, shom of unnecessary details, as projected by the petitioner are that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Sports Officer in.Badri Prasad Arts & Science College, Arang on 04.02.1982. The said college was taken over by the Govemment on 09.08.1983 andfhe petitioner was absorbed as Sports Officer in Govemment service. The petitioner is having_the qualification of M.P.Ed and M.A. (History). In the year 1987, the petitioner was f 'll.:.,—.. ^ff" sent on deputation to the respondent No. 2/University as Director, Physical Education, while he was working as Sports Officer, in Govemment Sanskrit College, Raipur. The period of deputation was initially for one year and thereafter extended for two years, and one year, respectively. During the said period, the case of the petitioner for absorption was under consideration by the University. However, it was not done, as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification ofPh.D. in Physical Education as laid down by the University Grants Coinmission. Thus, the petitioner was repatriated back to his parent department vide order dated 03.08.2001 (Anaexure P/7) and one Mr. G.M.Hasan, Sports Officer, was posted in place ofthe petitioner, on deputation. Later on, in the year 2002, the petitioner was awarded Ph.D. in Physical Education and thus, he became eligible to hold the post of Director, Physical Education. The petitioner was again sent on deputation vide order datedlO.09.2003 (Annexure P/10) to the University and Mr. Hasan was repatriated back to his parent department. The petitioner was repatriated back to his parent department and in his place, the respondent No. 3 was sent on deputation, by the impugned order dated 28.8.2004. Shri Dubey, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner wouid submit that the in order to accommodate the respondent No. 3 as Director, Physical Education, in the respondent University, the respondeat authorities have repatriated back the petitioner to his parent department when the petitioner is more qualified and holding the degree of Ph.D. in Physical Education, whereas, the !,lt^? !? & -f ,-A. 4. \A.U4 respondent No. 3 is merely a Sports Officer in a Govemment Aided Private College, who does not possess the requisite qualification for holding the said post. Shri Dubey would further submit that the case of the petitioner for absorption in fhe University was ah-eady pending consideration, thus, and in anticipation the petitioner had resigned from his post on 07.11.2000 (Annexure P/16). The order of repatriation is an outcome of oblique motive and not bn the ground of any administrative exigency, but only to accommodate the respondent No. 3, under the political influence. Shri Dubey would next eontend that the respondent No. 3 is having a firm dealing with supply of sports material, thus, the respondent-University, in order to get some personal benefit, has posted the petitioner on deputation. On the other hand, Shri Satish Gupta, learned Goveinment Advoeate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 would submit that stnce the posting of the petitioner as Director, Physical Education, in the University was on deputation and it is the prerogative of the Gbvemment to decide asto how long an employee has to remain on deputation. In case of administrative exigency, the govemment may recall services ofthe employee to his parent department. In an earlier occasion, when the petitioner was.not having the requisite qualification to hold the post, he was repatriated back to his parent department and the petitioner, without any protest, joined his parenf department. Shri Gupta would further submit that a plane reading of the order dated ^K:"^^ ^ ,f^^i, •'^1' :^ ^'. •% 'Nfc-a®.11 %., 10.09.2003 (Annexure P/10) would clearly show that the deputation period ofthe petitioner was not for a specific term but only until further order issued by the appropriate authority. The circular dated 12.12.1994 (Annexure P/ll), referred by the petitioner may not be of any relevance as the notification states that ordinarily, the period ofdeputation would be four years. Shri Neeraj Choubey, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent-University would submit that the respondent- University has merely obeyed the order passed by the State Govemment and relieved the petitioner from the post of Director, Physical Education tojoin at Govemment Post Graduate College, Mahasamund, on the post of Sports Officer and in compliance of the said order, the ^ respondent No. 3 was posted as Director, Physical Education. Shri Sourabh Dangi, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 would also make similar submission as made by leamed counsel appearing for the State as well as respondent-University. In addition, he would submit that at earlier point oftime, when the petitioner was sent on deputation to the University, the petitioner was also not having the requisite qualification to hold the post of Director, Physical Education. Further, the qualification for a direct recmitment is different to that of a person posted on deputation. Thus, the respondent No. 3 can very well be posted on deputation. Shri Darigi would; next contend that the allegation that the respondent No. 3 is running a business es.tablislmient is false and f!S5"~~«!8S, • li^ltK^IJSi. 5 r»;» .<?s ^•v^'^s^f ^- 9. baseless. The said fimi is in the name ofhis father and has nothing to do with the respondent No. 3. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The question involved in this petition is asto whether the petitioner has a right to continue on deputation in the borrowing department aad thereafter, he should be considered for absorption and posting on higher post. The petitioner was imtially sent on deputation to the respondent/University in the year 1987 and subsequently, on 10.09.2003, on the post of Director, Physical Education. In the order dated 10.09.2003 (Annexure P/10), it was stated that the terms ofthe deputation would be notified subsequently. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 28.08.2004 (Annexure P/l), the services of the petitioner was withdrawn from the borrowing department and he was posted on his substantive post of Sports Officer at Govemment Post Graduate College, Mahasamund, and in his place, the respondent No. 3, Prakash Singh Thakur, was sent on deputation. Contention ofthe leamed counsel for the petitioner that in view of the circular dated 12.12.1994 (Annexure P/ll) his services could not have been withdrawn before completion offour years, does not merit acceptance as the said circular provides that normally an employee may be sent on deputation for four years and if the period is.to be erihanced, the same is to be decided by both the departments i.e. the parent department and the borrowing .^. 10. VI department. The circular does not provide, in any way, that the employee shall be sent on deputation for a minimum period offour years. The order dated 10.09.2003 (Annexure P/10) wherein the petitioner was sent on deputation states fhat the same was until further orders. On the basis of the above stated circular the petitioner cannot claim, or he is not entitled to continue on deputation in the respondent University for a minitnum period of four years. Thus, the order dated 28.08.2004 (Annexure P/l), is just, proper and does not warrant interference. The second impugned order dated 01.09.2004 (Armexure P/2), wherein it is stated that pursuant to the order dated 28.08.2004, the respondent No. 3 has joined the service, is a matter of fact and it cannot be held as illegal or vitiated. The third impugned. order dated 28.08.2004 (Annexure P/3) whereby the petitioner has been relieved from deputation post to join his parent department, is also a consequence of the order dated 28.08.2004 (Annexure P/l) and there is no question ofconsidering the illegality or validity of the same as this order was also passed in compliance of the earlier orderdated 28.08.2004 (Annexure P/l). The prayer that the respondent No. 1/State and the respondent No. 2/University may be directed to permit the petitioner to continue on deputation for a period of four years, is not maintainable as the petitioner cannot claim as a matter ofright to continue on the post on depu.tation, wheri the parent department has decided to withdraw his services from the borrowing^department. The r'Bt. i£) •i;.;;'1 :1 •'-c*\ -~> ^r. •~>, •^./' 7 allegation in respect of mala fide has no force, as the same is unsubstaatiated. 11. The word 'deputation' has been considered in State of Punjab & Others v. Jnder 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 atemporarybasis. 12. The Supreme Court, in Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar & Another , the word 'deputation' has been defined 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 (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 volimtary decision ofthe employer to lend the services ofhis employee and a corresponding acceptance ofsuch services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not." ' (1997)88cc 372 2(1999)4SCC659 ,,;;?3""a!<, G^:!» '^ st S 13. In Prasar Bharti & Others V. Amarjeet Singh & Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "13. There exists a distinction befrween "transfer" and "deputation". "Deputation" 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, transfer being antithesis must exhibit the opposite indications." .<<,.' Amit 14. Applying the well settled principles 6f law to the facts of case on hand, no interference with the impugned orders, is warranted. The petition is bereft ofmerit and is accordingly dismissed, 15. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- SatishIC.Agnihotri Judge AIR2007SC 1269