IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7296 of 2004 HIRA KUMAR SINGH, S/O SRI GAYANESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SOHA, P.S.- SONBARSA,-RAJ, DISTRICT-SAHARSA, AT PRESENT STORE KEEPER, M.H.M COLLEGE, SONBARSA, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. ………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. B.N.MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE CHANCELLOR, BHUPENDRA NARAYAN MANDAL UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, B.N.M.U. MADHEPURA. 4. THE REGISTRAR, BHUPENDRA NARAYAN MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, M.H.M COLLEGE, SONBARSA IN THE DISTRICT OF SAHARSA. 6. DR. AMARNATH SINHA, S/O NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, VICE CHANCELLOR, B.N.M.U DARBHANGA. 7. SRI MURLIDHAR YADAV, S/O NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, PRESENTLY PROCTOR B.N.M.U MADHEPURA. 8. SRI SHAILENDRA YADAV, S/O NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, ESTATE OFFICE, B.N.M.U. MADHEPURA. 9. DEPUTY SECRETARY, GOVERNOR’S SECRETARIAT, RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA. ………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 24.11.2010 Having heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Counsel for the University and Learned Counsel for Chancellor, this court is of the opinion that there can be no exception to the settled position in law that a person under deputation in the event of his being repatriated to his original post in parent department can not claim a right to remain continuing on 2 the deputed post. Presently, in this case, the petitioner was a permanent employee holding Class-III post in M.H.M College, Sonbarsa which is a constituent unit of B.N.M.U. Madhepura and was sought to be placed on deputation in the University Headquarters. Subsequently, his services by an order dated 03.01.2002 had been returned back to his college. The petitioner, in fact has assailed the said order only on an apprehension that such cancellation of his deputation of being returned to the parent post is based on some stigmatic reasons and the same may also prejudice him in his future service career. Learned Counsel for the University has however fairly submitted the impugned order in no way would be treated as stigma in the career of the petitioner. On receiving such assurance and undertaking of the Respondents, Learned Counsel does not intend to press this application. At this stage learned counsel for the University however, has pointed out that the petitioner has not vacated the quarter which he was allotted at the time of deputation by the authority and as such he may be directed to vacate the quarter in question. In the considered opinion 3 of this Court the petitioner is under obligation was continuing on deputation. Thus the petitioner must vacate the quarter in question, if not already vacated, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear, that if the petitioner does not vacate the quarter in question in the aforesaid period it would be open for the competent authority of the University to take coercive measures including disciplinary actions against the petitioner for his misconduct of not vacating the quarter. With the aforementioned observation and direction this writ application is disposed off. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)