'Oi lo^ |e« ^ HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BKASPTJR PETmONER RESPONDENTS WritPetifeMfSlNo,3lS®_of2087 Uttar Kumar Sharma S/o Shri R.S. Sharma, Aged about 43 years, Basic Pusl is Assistant Teacher, R/o Jorapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). V-ER8US 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through sts Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. The Managing Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, .•ydkrit Bhawan, IInd Floor, Pension liada, Raipur (CG). 3- The Collector, District Bilaspur (CG). 4. District Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Near office ofthe Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). miyT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmJHON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satlsh K. AenUiotri,.!.) Present • Shri Anup Majiimdar, Advocate for the pet»tioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwalia, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORALOM>ER (Passed on 04"1 ufApill, 2008) 1- The petitioner, by this petition, mipugps the order dated 05.05.2007 (Amiexiire P/l) passed by the Secretary, Govemmetrt of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, whereby, the petitioner was repatriated back to the Education Deparhnent on being found not suitable on the post of Block Resoitrce Centre Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was sent on deputation for a period of three years. The petitioner was repatriated back to the education department on the yoimd that the pe'titioner being Assistant Teacher is not qualified to be sent on depirtation on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordmator/Assistaiit Proyanane Coordinator on 05.05.2007 (Ajmexure p/1). 3. Shri Anup Majumdar, leamed coiinsel 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 tfae sendces ofthe petitioner Irom the deputation is without consent ofthe petitioner as well as without consent ofthe einployer. Thus, the impugned order is bad m 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. 4. Per contra, Shri A.S. KacNiwaha, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 & 4 would siibmit that the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan of Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, a!l the Priniary Schoo's were up-graded to Upper Primary Schools. The Teachers reqitired earlier for the Primary Sclmols were Assigfant Teachers like the petitioner. They were, accordingly, depirtation but after up-gradation of the Primary Schools to Upper Primary Schools, more qualified teachers are required. The pe'titioner, being Assistant Teacher, has been repatriated back oa the ground of up gradation of the Schools. As per guidelines of Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, eariierthe qualification was as imder "fittiititg.s ?ahi ^-s ^n^TiR?: srarar (?) mw^g wrar 4 <i>pfei cqt<sittdi/f$THqi/laof$iws | ^) afpra; wqnr ^ ui-rapn? ^t gFRIT (0) ftrefr ^ qRt ^if^ T?q cTT-T 1" 5. Thereafter, after upg-adation, the qualification of Block Resource Coordinator is as imder: "R'hl-H-y'-si ^tT t^? •K*I«ltl*: 1. TfNiRf fiTSW/gW-PRSq'. ^ ^i^rPiq' WKII/CUKsqifll 1 2. 3!*!<ft'b 11'ftdR'! <ET »!^«!^ ma|Pt<b(il ! 3. VT^ St^S ^ arPRi 'CT"T ^r^ ^t SPRiT ^ j 4. yR^ut-i! ^f '&pf <ST^ q?r •ar^'nl" 6. In view ofthe policy decision ofthe State Goverament, it became necessary to recall back all the Assistant Teachers to the Education Department and tiie Teachers who are having qualification required for BIock Resouree Centre Coordinator remams tfaere on depirtation. 7. Having heard leamed counsel appearmg for the parties, peiiised the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that it is not a case ofsimplicitor repatriation before completion ofthe (ieputation period. r!ltj>'ft<! ]".^ 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court Court in the matter of Siate of Punjab and otibicrs Vs. ladcr Singh and otfecrs v.'faile coBsidermg the deputation aad repatriation to the parent cadre/departmeiit on eiipiry ofperiod ofdeputation held as under:- "18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotatiou in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple 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 sanie position unl^s in the meanwhile he has eamed promotion in his parent department as per the P-ecniitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside tfae nonnal field ofdeployment or not is decided by the anthority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. Tiiere can be no deputation •without the conaeiKt of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, fcnow his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on depirtation 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 case ofTJinapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and another^ has defined 'deputation' inthe following terms:- "Depiitation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as tfie parent department or lending autharity) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). Tlie necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies ofpublic service. The concept ofdeputation is coiisensuai aiid invoives a voluntary decision ofthe employerto lenc! the services ofhis employee and a corresponding acceptaiice of such service by the borrowing employer. !t also involveg the consent ofthe employee to go on deputation or not,' 10.1nthe case of an employee ifhig suitability to the post is under question becaiise 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 depiitatioiiist '- (1997) 8 SCC 372 2nQ99)4SC.C.659 CO prematurely. (See Judgnent dated 04.04.2008, passed in W.P. No. 2298/2008 (Ajay Shanm Vs. State ofChhattisgarii & Otliei-t and comiected matters). 11. It is clear Irom the retam filed by the State Govermnent that the State Goverament has taken a decision to upgrade Primary Sehools to Upper Primary Schools under Sarva Shiksha A_bhtyan, wherem, the teachera alone have suitable qualification and exprnence. The Assistant Teachers are not suitable to the posts. Therefore, decision of the govemnieat is just and proper and does not warrant aiy intetference. The apprehension of flie petitioner that impugied order is gtigmatic has no ba.sis as tfae petitioner has no rig}rt to the post in borrowing department. Itis simply a repatriation of the petitioner as Assistant Teachers do not have such qualification as required for the post in the borrowing department. 12. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu