HIGH COITRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WNtPetmon(S)Np.ll24of2W8 PETJTIQNER RESPONDENTS Dr. K.B. Singli, S/o Late Sliri B.R. Singh, aged about 50 years, presently posted on deputation as Exammation Controller iii Pandit Sundar Lal Shaniia Open University, Bilaspur (CG). ^7ERSUS 1. State ofCliliattisgarh, Tlirougli the Seeretary, Department of Higher Education, DKS Building^ Mantralaya, Raipur (CG)» 2. Pandit Sundar Lal Shamia Open University, Bilaspur (CG), tlirough its Registrar. 3. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Higlier Education, DK8 Building Maiitralaya, Raipur (CG). (WRIT PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUHON OF INDIA) fSB: Hoiitble Mr. Satisli K. Affluhotoi,^.! Present : Sliri B.D. Guro, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 26th Feforuary, 2008) 1. The petitioiier, being aggrieved by the eoniiiiumcafion dated 24.12.2007 (Aimexiire P/l) issued by Officer osi Special Duty, Higher Ediication Departmeiit, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG), addressed to the Registrar, Pt. Sundar Lal Shamia, Open University, Bilaspur, requesting withdrawal of the services of the petitioner to the pareiit department i.e. Higlier Education Department. It appears that, the respondent imiversity vide liis letter dated 28.12.2007 (Aimexiire P/13) has expressed its difRculty m seiiding back the petitioner to the parent department on account of certam exigency. 2. Be that as !t may, the petitioner camiot complam that 011 accoimt of deputation to the imiversity he had acquired certain riglits. Services of the petitioiier was borrowed b}/ the miivei^ity from the parent department i.e. Higlier Education Department It is for the parent departmeiit to use services ofthe petitioner whetever he is required iii the public interest and iii administrative exigency. ^) 3. It appears that some correspondence is going on between the imiversity and the Govemment. 4. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner fiirther submits that the petitioiier is aggrieved because no regular incumbent to look after the work ofthepefitioner m the umversity has been appointed, This can not be grievaiice ofthe petitioner as it is the responsibility ofthe respondent universit}/ to look after the work ofthe petitioner asid interest ofthe students. Thiis, the petitioiier's grievaiice is baseless and frivolous. 5. Having considered all the pleadmgs and the submissions madeby the leamed coimsel appearing for the petitioner, it is clear that the parent departmeiit is at liberty to take services ofthe petitioner back as held by the Supreme Court iii the case ofUmapati Choudhary Vs. State ofBihar and anotherl (See (1999) 4 SCC 659} in the following terms:- "Deputation canbe aptly described as an assigiiment ofan employee (coimiioiily referred to as the deputatiomst) of one department or cadre or even an orgaiiization (ooiimionly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (conmionly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sendmg 011 deputatioii arises iii public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deplrtation is consensual and involves a volimtary decision ofthe employer to lend the services ofhis employee and a correspondiiig acceptance ofsuch services by the borrowing employer, It also involves the coiisent of the employee to go on deputation or not;" 6. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly disniissed smmiiarily. No order asto coste. Sahu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1. 0999) 4SCC 659.