P.(SS No. 4279 of 2007 Kainuiid Lal Dahariya, s/o Shri Bhagirathi Dahariya, Aged about 38 years, Assistan.t Teacher, presently posted as Block Developinent Co- orduiator, Rajiv Gaitdhi. Shiksha inission, Block Podi Uprodha, District Korba Chhattisgarh State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary Departinent of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Director Mission, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C. G). 3. CoUector, Chhattisgarh District Director, District Project Rajiv Gaadlu Shiksha Mission, Distt. Korba, Chbattisgarh. District Project Co-ordinator, Rajiv Gaudhi Shiksha Mission District Korba, Chhatdsgarh Shri Amrito Das, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Ashutosh Singh Kachliawaha, Govt.Advocate with Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Paael Lawyer for fhe State/ respondents No. 1 to 3 on advan.cc copy. (24.07.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,_J. Heard on adraission. The petitioner who is working on fhe substantive post of Assistaat Teacher in fhe Tribal Welfare Departiiient was sent on deputation as Block Developnient Coorduiator, Pondiupai'oda, vide order dated 24.6.2006 (Annexure P-4). -2- ff.P(S^ no4279/q7 •<w Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner subinits that he worked there upto 11.7.2007 and on 12.7.2007 by impugned order (Annexure P-1), he has been repatriated to parent department. He subnuts that fhe said repatriation is arbitiary aad it casts serious aspersions on the character aad credibiUty of the petitioner in the Sociely. He subinits that such pleadiags have been undertaken in fhe petition vide ground ao.6.3 and on this ground he prays for quashinent of fhe order. On being poiiitedly asked to the leamed couasel for the petitiouer as to how the order casts serious aspersions on fhe character aad credibility of fhe petitioner, he could not satisfactorily explam before this Court about tbe said ground. I have gone fhrough fhe contents of fhe order Annexure P- 1. Nothiag as contended by leanied counsel for fhe petitioaer has been inentioned itt the order and fhe order is a simple order of repatriation after lapse of about a period of oue year deputation. The deputation aad repatriation are fhe instaiices of service and so far as repatriation is concemed, no lega-1 impediaient is tbere to call the officer back to fhe parent departinent, who has been sent on deputation to sonie ofher deparianent. In fact, leamed couiisel for the petitioner could not poiat out aiiy ground warranting iiiterference of fhis Court in fhe inipugned order. Haviag gone through the impugaed order and having heard leamed counsel for fhe petitioner, I do not fiiid aay reason to ititerfere with the inipugned order. The petition has no raerit and fhe same is disitussed_at fhe inotion stage itself. -a-——— Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge Rao