IN THE HIti COtRi OF AiAKA A NGALO Dated this the 8th day of June 1998 BORE THE HON PIE MR JIJSf1CE C ,C BHARUKA WRIi FEflION NO11O58/1998 Between : Sri fl. 1ia11ikarj un wamy aged about 57 years 8/0. H.S.Hobalidar Senior Health Inspector Mysore City Corporal ion Mysore—4.. ,., Petitioner. (By Sri S,V,arasimkn Advocate), And: 1. The Coissioner Mysae City Corporation Mys ore—4, 2. Director Health & Family Welfare Services An1da Rao Circle Bgalore—9, spondts, (By Sri M. Papanna, Advocate, for H —1). This writ petit ion is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare Ann exure—D dt. 6—3—98 of respondent No.1 as illegal and quash the order dt. 6—3—98 vide Annexure—D of respondent No.1, etc. This writ petition coming on rpreliminary hearing this day, the Cot made the following:— ORDER The petitioner is woxking as Senior ialtb Inspector in the Department of HeLth d Family Welfare Services, Goverent of Karnataka Under Official Memorandum dated 86.-94 with his consent as provided under Rule 419(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules,his services re lent to the MysoA Corporation where he jointed on 74—94, (Anrxurij By the impugned order daied 6_’—98Lthe Corporation has repatriated his rvices to the arent Departnt since as per the Corpo atlon his services were not found to be satisfactory, ifl the impugd order it ha furti bea iaid tr tk cruel sk uld g to the file which cording to the petitioner ‘1 mans his service records, it has been submitted on tebaif of the petitioner that t e impuied order is not sustainable in iai because the reason for , 3/— his repatriation is, atteF.. The ftirther objction is that the Commissioner in t Corpo ration has no authority to rect that the impugied order should fbi part of the file pertaining t o the service record of the petit toner which may have adverse effect on his service,c-e, in my opinion the lonee Department can return the services of a deputatioflist at any time if it is f d that his services are either no more necessary or not appropriately useful. The deputationist c:arnot e4 any lien the deputat ion post axid exert any right to rein there That being the siiatiOn,no fi1t can be found in repatriation of the petitioner to the p ar9nt Department. So far as mention about his perfoce of duties being not satisfaetory to the assest of the Commissioner is a onceed, n my opinion thenever the retriation is directed by lonee Dep artnt or Institutionit is always impliot in 1 that the deputationist ismore required and that can haen ,• .4/ o. e4ae only if the deputatinist’s serviaes are not foun.d t o be useful or satisfaetory up—to the expectation of lonee Institution Tiers fore in my opinion such observatios cannot be taken or a treated to be, 4 stigma retpiring amy enquiry or opportimity of bearing to be giwn to the deputatdbnibt. Such observations s’s nde cm overall assesemeit o f the w a’kin g of the concerned employee and refleets foration of tentatise only a. opinion fOr tin limited pirpose 1 ylsther the services should be retained by the lonee or not. So far as the threotion of the Commissioner to tarry tie order in thefi2e of the petit Icier is toncemed,WJapamra le ame d counsel for the Corporation fairly concedes that no such retion tould ham been gisen by the Commissioner and the same be dir ec2ted to be deleted. In tin said vi ai of tin matter Us wcrds “to the file” as appearing 4L b44-Lflsf aa-t’t-,vsa in ,%the impugned order, will be • . •• deed to ha been struck off Subject to the above observations and directions,I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is accordingly smissed. sa1 3UDGE 4 — if ‘I \/_ .4 rsk