IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7080 of 2010 1. SATYAJEET KUMAR S/O SRI BALESHWAR PRASAD R/O IN THE HOUSE OF SRI RAJIV RANJAN SINHA, SARISTABAD, P.S.- GARDANIBAGH, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT COUNCIL, BELTRON BHAWAN, SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION-CUM- DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT, JAHANABAD ----------- 2 28.6.2010 Petitioner is a permanent teacher under the State Government in the department of Primary Educaion. He was sent on deputation to Bihar Education Project Council for a period, which was to end on 31st March,2010.It seems that petitioner’s parent department considered the matter and permitted the petitioner to remain on deputation upto 31.8.2010. That is evident from order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna . This was sent to Bihar Education Project Council to consider the matter.They decided to repatriate the services of the petitioner to the parent department and accordingly issued office order dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure 6) which is under challenge) . On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that when the parent department extended the period of deputation then the Council could not send petitioner back before that date. Having heard the matter, in my view, the submission is - 2 - misconceived. The parent department cannot decide as to how long a person would remain on deputation. The utility of such a person is to be decided by the department in which he is deputed. If the department, which sought deputation decides to repatriate a person to his parent department neither the employee nor the parent department can have any objection. Accordingly because the parent department sanctioned deputation up to August,2010 does not make it incumbent upon the department in which petitioner was deputed to keep the petitioner there. The petitioner has to obey the order, as contained in Annexure 6. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is dismissed. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)