@ HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. 5133 of2W7 Surendra Singh Chandra S/o late Shri Shyam Lal Chandra, aged about 42 ycars, presentiy working as a Block Resource Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Sarwa Shikgha Abiliyan, Block Jaijaipur, District Janigir Champa. (CG). PETITIONER : VERSUS 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, 11nd Floor, Pension Bada, Raipur (CG). 3. The Collector, District Janjgir Champa (CG). 4. District Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan, Dignict Janjgir Champa (CG). 5. Vinod Kumar Shanna, Head Master, Government Middle School, PUtpura, Block Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'hle Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Anup Majnrndar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' AS. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORA} ORDER (Passed on MI“; of tipri], 29%) . The petitioner, by this petition, impugn the order dated 05.05.2007 (Annexme I’fl) 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, Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was sent on deputation for a period of three years on 27.12.2006 (Annexare PIG). Before completion of the period of three years i.e. 26.12.2009, the petitioner was repatriated back to the education department on the ground that the petitioner being Assistant Teacher is not qualitied to be sent on deputation on the post of Block Resource Centre CoordinatorfAssistant Programme Coordinator on 05.05.2007 (Annexure P/l). 3. Shn' 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 hem the deputation is Without @ R) consent of the. petitioner as well as without consent 0f the employer. Thus, 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 contrav SlLri AS. Kachhwaha, learned 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 tip-graded to Upper Primary Schools. The Teaehers required earlier for the Primary Schools were Assistant Teachers like the petitioner. They were, accordingly, deputation but alter tip-gradation of the Primary Schools to Upper Primary Schools, more qualified teachers are required. The petitiorier, being Assistant Teacher, has been repatriated back eh the ground of up gradation of the Schools. As per guidelines of Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Missing earlier the qualification was as urtder: “Wat—eatremz (a)r~rm$emf€r 31W (a) W W 13' emit?! m/lerm/Hofhml (a) wwwm' Hem (u) armat‘uleww'wrm” 5. Thereaiter, alter upgradation, _ the qualitication of Block Resource Coordinator is as under: 'W at?! at? W: emit! 1. um thee/mm, 1i mthar anew/armor! Wm%€§aartag¢mmlmml 3. umeat‘emmmaahmetl 4. MmeMWmergum" 6. In View ofthe policy decision ofthe 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 domunents appended thereto, it is evident that it is not a case of simplicitor repatriation before completion ofthe deputation period. We t 8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court Court ii; the matter of State of Punjab and athers Vs. Imier Sing}: and otkcrsl while considering the deputation and repatriation to the parent cadre/depamnent on exphy of period of deputation held as under :- “18r The concept of “deputation” is well understood hi servioe law and has a recognized meaning. ”Deputation“ has a diiferent connotation in service law and, the dictionary meaning of the word “deputation“ is of no heip. In Simpie 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 deptltation 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 vase of Urnapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar mil anotherz has defined ‘dcputation’ in the following tenns:~ / “Deputation can be aptly described as an assigmnent 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 ofthe employer to lend the services ofhis employee and a corresponding acceptance of such service by the borrowing employer. lt also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not.” if). 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 ‘ r1997) 8 scc 37-2 2 (1999) 4 soc 659 Sahu f1\ 4 prematurely. (See Judgment dated 04.04.2008, passed in WP‘ No. 2298/2008 (Ajay Shanna Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), and connected maiters). 11. It is clear &om the return ftled by the State Government that the State Government has taken a decision to upgrade Primaxy 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 impugted order is stigmatie 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. l2. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge