THE HON’BLE HIGH CUR O CHHATTISHGARH AT BODRI BILASPUR C.G IN W.P. (S) No /, Meghnath Gayakward, aged 56 years S/o Shri , Sanher Ram Gayakward, District Prbject Coordinatar, District Narayanpur (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS v RESPONDENS wax" ......... ffgW/ 33 (1)“ The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through ~ The Secretary, Education Department D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) x (2) Rajiv Gandhi Shikchha Mission Raipur,(C.G.) Mission Director WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE O‘ MANDAMUS OF WRIT] DIRECTION OR ANY OTHE c w... 4— ’0’ APPROPRIATE ‘ wm'r OT F . \ F R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 358 of 201 1 PETITIONER Meghnath Gayakward VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another Post for pronouncement of the order on2}.9.2011 i Sdl— Pritinker Diwakar ‘ i i i i Judge A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 358 of 2011 PETITIONER Meghnath Gayakward VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and ancther Shri Ajay Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.N. Naha Roy PL for the respondent No. 1/State. None for respondent No.2 though served. Shri Shashank Thakur counsel for intervenor — Ashok' Patel. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (23.09.2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.1.2011 (Annexure P—1) passed by respondent No.1 repatriating the petitioner from the post of District Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, District Narayanpur to the option of District Education Officer, Kanker. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that substantive post of the petitioner is Principal of Higher Secondary School. On 17.5.2010 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner was sent on deputation as District Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Korba and thereafter on 21 .5.2010 vide Annexure P-7 his posting at Korba was modified and he was sent on deputation as District Project Coordinator, Narayanpur. Subsequently, vide order impugned dated 10.1 .2011 the petitioner has been repatriated to the option of District Education Officer, Kanker. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the writ petition the petitioner has taken a ground that on the basrs of Circular dated 2 12 1988 duly relied upon by this Court while passmg the order dated 27 3 2008 in ‘ W.P. (S) 3997/2007 he cannot be repatriated before completion of two i years, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in W.A. No. 134/ 2009 (Tamreshwar Prasad Upadhyay v. State and others), he is not @ .—2—a pressing the said ground. He however submits that in WP (S) 3997/2007 this Court has held that a deputationist cannot be repatriated without his consent and that being so the order impugned is bad in law as no consent of the petitioner was obtained before repatriating him to his parent department by the order impugned. Thus according to the counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. 4. Replying to the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted by the counsel for respondent No.1 as also by counsel for the intervener that for repatriating an employee his consent is not necessary and if the order has been passed by the authority competent to do so, then it is a valid order. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. This Court does not find any force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be repatriated to his parent department without his consent. Order dated 27.3.2008 passed in W.P. (S) 3997/2007 is of no help to the petitioner because the said order has been passed by this Court considering the circular dated 2.12.1988. It is a settled legal position that a deputationist has no vested right to continue for long or get himself absorbed in the borrowing department, 7. In the aforesaid view of the factual and legal aspect of the matter, the order impugned cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner and that being so the petition is liable to be dismissed. lt is dismissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge