1 S/1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5464/2010. Kojraj Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. .. Date of Order :: 11th June 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI (Vacation Judge) Mr. Rameshwar Dave, for the petitioners. ... Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.III with the Education Department, and were sent on deputation on the post of CRCF under the District Elementary Education Council, Barmer under the order dated 07.10.2005. The petitioners, however, came to be promoted on the post of Teacher Gr.II by the order dated 29.09.2009. Thereafter, on 02.06.2010, the respondent No.6 proceeded to issue an office order that though the petitioners were working on deputation but the deputational post being meant for Teacher Gr.III, the petitioners, on account of their promotion, were immediately relieved to join their parent department. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that several other persons who have been similarly promoted to the post of Teacher Gr.II were still working on deputation with the respondent No.6. It is further submitted that even in the fresh orders as issued for deputation, one Shri Mukesh Kumar who was working as Senior Teacher has also been sent on such deputation. The learned 2 counsel for the petitioner further vehemently contended that the petitioners were sent on deputation for a tenure of five years and such tenure having not come to an end, they could not have been reverted to their parent department. It is, thus, contended on behalf of the petitioners that sending them back to the parent department was unjust, illegal and arbitrary; and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The core of the contentions on behalf of the petitioners is that when several similarly situated persons are still working on the post of CRCF under respondent No.6, there was no reason that the petitioners were chosen to be reverted to the parent deparatment. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. through Govt. of Pondicherry and another Vs. V.Ramakrishnan and others: AIR 2005 SC 4295. There cannot be any quarrel with the principles expounded and explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Ramakrishnan's case (supra). In the said decision itself, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly pointed out that a deputationist has no legal right to continue on the post but then, the order of reversion could be questioned when the same is issued mala fide; and an action taken in a post haste manner would indicate malice. The suggestions as made on behalf of the petitioners, of certain other persons promoted on the post of Teacher Gr.II having been continued or that one such person having been freshly sent on deputation, hardly make out a case of mala fide against the respondents. In the matter of present nature where the petitioners were nothing but deputationists and have been reverted to the parent department for the relevant consideration that they had been 3 promoted to the post of Teacher Gr.II and the deputation post is meant for Teacher Gr.III, the exercise remains unexceptionable and some suggestion about certain persons having not been reverted yet, or having been taken on deputation though working as Teacher Gr.II does not make out a case for issuance of writ in the nature that the petitioners be continued on the post of CRCF. This is apart from the fact that the petitioners appear not to have even served a notice/representation on the respondents stating their grievances. Similarly, the submissions on the alleged tenure remain baseless when it is noticed that the tenure on the said deputation post is referable to a person working as teacher Gr.III; and such cannot be considered applicable to the petitioners once they have promoted, way back in the month of September 2009, on the post of teacher Gr.II. It is further noticed that though the order promoting the petitioners came to be issued in the month of September 2009, but they have been reverted to the parent department only in the month of June 2010. Obviously, the respondents have not acted in haste. After having taken into comprehension the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is unable to find any reason to issue any writ, order or direction so as to compel the respondents to continue the petitioners on deputation. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), VJ. //MK//