\\ {Q C7C’fraoL IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) No. 1 y 9 ¢ / 2oo7 Petitioner Q‘ §§¢a§fespondents V‘ k /1) /2) Yogesh Kumar Vishwakarma, S/o Late Shri G.R.Vishwakarma, Aged about 30 years, R/o C/o Shri Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma, Quarter No.P—3,' Section —- 1, Housing Board Colony, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh — Through the Secretary, Housing & Environment Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) The Deputy Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, 'Housing 8t Environment Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) The Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission — Through the Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) d The Chhattisgarh Housing Boar, Through its Commissmner, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C G ) wiuT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w é HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S! N0. 1 194 of 2007 Peh’tionar Yogesh Knmar Vishwakamla Versus Respondents State of Chhatiisgarh and others Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri P. Diwakar, Sanior Advocate with Sl1ri‘P.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (Passed on 28$ day of February, 2007) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. mihotri, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of the impugned order dated 4.1.2007 (P/ 10) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Housing an Envimnment Departinent] respomient No. 2 and further prays for a direction to the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) to take steps for absorbing the service of the petitioner in the Commission. .2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was originally employed on the post. of Assistant in the Department of Environment 8r, Urban Development vide order dated 3.2.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Commission vide order dated 4.2.2003 (P/ 1). The petitioner gave. his consent for his absorption in the Commission on 19.5.2004. Creation of 88 posts in the Commission was approved by the Government, but the petitioner was not absorbed in spite of the fact that there was availability of the post. Vide order dated @ 4. 1.2007, the sm‘vices of 15 O$C€rs, who were sent on deputation, including the petitioner, wem Withdrawn to the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur (hereinafter mfen‘ed to as ‘the Board’). The said order is impugned herein. The petitioner has challenged the Older of withdrawal of deputation on the ground that the Commission ought to have absorbed his services, as the petitioner has given consent for absorption. It was further contended that the impugned order is had in View of the fact that the consent of the Commission was not obtained before the impugned order was passed‘ The petitioner fulfils all the qualification for being absorbed as Assistant Grade-III. . On query, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to submit as What is his tight for absorption in the Commission. Whether he was sent on deputation as his substantial appointment was in. the Department of Environment and Urban Development or Whether lien was maintained in the parent department. The petitioner cannot claim any right for absorption in. the Commission after the deputation period is over. The Parent department has full right to recall the services of its employees from the deparnnent/establishment, wherein the petitioner was sent on deputation. The petitioner has completed two years on deputation and there are several other employees, who have been recalled from deputation. It appears, that there is no violation of any right as the petitioner has no right to absorption in the Commission . The Supreme Court in the ease of Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and anotherl, has detined ‘deputation’ in the following terms: - @ “Deputation can be aptly describad as an assignment of an employee (commonly mfermd to as the deputationst) of one department or cadre or even an organisation {commonly mferred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another depaxtment or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public intelest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the bom‘owing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not”. 5. This petition lacks mateiial facts and is devoid of merit. As a result and for the aforementioned masons, this petition is dismissed x v r i summan‘ly. SW- i atish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge f 1 V (1999) 4 sec 659 Bablu / S