IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1464 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 14535 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 8871 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1464 of 2010 ==================================================== Mundrika Prasad Singh, son of Late Rameshwar Singh, resident of Mohalla- College Road at and P.S. Ratua, District-Patna at present posted as Executive Engineer, N.R.E.P., P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, at and Distt.-Patna. …. …. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, at Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Patna. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna. 7. Ram Chandra Sharma (name of father not known to the petitioner) Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Vishwsariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. …. …. Respondents-Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha I, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 25.11.2010. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1464 of 2010 and Interlocutory Application No. 8871 of 2010: - This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the - 2 - Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 3rd September 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 14535 of 2010. The subject matter of dispute is the order dated 20th November 2009 by which the appellant was repatriated from National Rural Employment Programme (N.R.E.P.) to the parent department in the State Government, confirmed by the Rural Development Department under its Notification dated 21st July 2010. The challenge to the Notification dated 21st July 2010 in above C.W.J.C. No. 14353 of 2010 has failed before the learned single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the impugned Notification is vitiated by non- application of mind. He has submitted that earlier, by order dated 26th November 2009 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 16135 of 2009, the learned single Judge had directed the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department to consider the matter afresh. Instead the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department has ratified the earlier order dated 20th November 2009 and has thus failed to apply his mind. We have perused the record. It is apparent that the challenge to the order of repatriation, time and again in several writ petitions filed before this Court is purely technical. The order of repatriation dated 20th November 2009 was made by the State Government in its Rural Works Department. It is the claim of the - 3 - appellant that the order of repatriation could have been made by the Rural Development Department alone as it is the Rural Development Department which is the administrative department for the officers employed in the National Rural Employment Programme. The reliance is placed on Government Circular dated 18th June 2009. Under the said Circular the Government servants employed in the National Rural Employment Programme are placed under the administrative control of the Rural Development Department. It is vehemently argued that contrary to the directions issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5446 of 2010, the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department has merely ratified the impugned order of repatriation dated 20th November 2009 instead of reconsidering the matter afresh. Let it be noted that by order dated 26th November 2009 made on C.W.J.C. No. 16135 of 2009 the learned single Judge had directed the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department to consider the order dated 20th November 2009 and that the parties shall finally abide by such orders passed by him. Further by the later judgment and order dated 7th July 2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5446 of 2010, the learned single Judge reiterated that the directions contained in the order dated 26th November 2009 had to be complied with forthwith. The learned single Judge further directed the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department to take a decision with regard to deputation/repatriation of the appellant in light of the discussion in the judgment. - 4 - In our opinion the impugned Notification dated 21st July 2010 is issued in consonance with the aforesaid direction issued on 7th July 2010. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department has confirmed the order of repatriation of the appellant made on 20th November 2009. We also agree with the learned single Judge that the appellant has no right to deputation. Consequently, the challenge to the order of repatriation made by the competent authority is not sustainable. We find no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application No. 8871 of 2010 stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)