C^tz^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONfS) N0. OF 2009 PETITIONER: Jai Prakash, Aged About- 34 Years, S/o- Shri G.R. Kaushik, Occupation- Service-Working as Eniploynient Officer, Kabirdham (C.G.) w ^ \ iM^/ v^^ 15'-' .<? VERSUS RESPONDENT(S): 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Departraent of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.Awar Sachiv, Takniki Shiksha, Janshakti Niyojan Vigyan Aywam Prodigiki , Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3-Director, Employment and Training, Raipur (C.G.) 4.Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi (C.G.) 5. Satya Prakash Rajoriya, S/o- (Not known to the petitioner), Occupation Service-Working as Employment Officer, Rajanandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Writ Petition (S) No. 5812/2009 PETITIONER Jai Prakash RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others 99 Shri Vinay Pandey counsel for the petitioner Shri A.V. Shridar PL for respondents 1 to 3 Shri Raghvendra Pradhan counsel for respondent No.4 None for respondent No.5 though served. WRTI PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA ORDER (24.08.2011) Challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 25.9.2009 whereby the petitioner who is working as Employment Officer in Employment Exchange, Kabirdham has been transferred to Industrial Training Institute ('ITI' for short) Rajnandgaon. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of Employment Officer is governed and regulated by the Chhattisgarh Employment Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2005 (for short the 'Rules of 2005') whereas the employees of ITI are regulated and govemed by the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Gazeted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2005 (for short the 'ITI Rules'). He submits that in the schedule, there is no post of Employment Officer or any other post which is transferable with the Employment OfRcer though the pay scale of the Principal Class II under schedule 1 of the ITI Rules, is equal to the pay scale of Employment Officer. According to him, the transfer of the petitioner from Employment Exchange to ITI amounts to deputation from one end to the other which cannot be effected unless the consent of the concerned employee (the petitioner herein) is there. According to him, the respondenVState in its memo dated 23.10.2002 (Annexure R- x.^Z~!!v^ ;:•'». 1 € -•2-- 1/1) has indicated the pay scale of the Employment Officer as Rs. 8000-275-13,500. 3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the order passed this Court on 6.4.2011 in W.P. (S) 5745 of 2009. This submission has not been controverted by the counsel for the respondents as well. 4. Counsel for the respondents submit that since the Director of ITI and the Employment & Training is one and the same, the services between the two departments can always be interchanged and the same cannot be termed to be a deputation but transfer. On being questioned about the posts interchangeable under the Rules, the counsel for the respondents could not respond to the same. More so, the Rules also do not go to show that the employees of two categories governed by different rules can be transferred from one department in question to the other. 5. Thus in view of above, the case in hand can by no stretch of imagination be held to be of transfer but apparently of deputation. It is trite law that no employee can be sent to any other department on deputation without his/her prior consent because it would amount to change of employer. Undisputedly, in the case in hand the consent of the petitioner has not been obtained before passing the order impugned. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Order dated 25.9.2009 as far as it relates to the petitioner stands quashed. No order as tocosts. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge