LOKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh Gahtori Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Sah, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Registrar, Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, Haridwar (annexure no. 11 to the writ petition), whereby the deputation of the petitioner has been cancelled and petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as store keeper in Govind Ballabh Pant Engineering College, Ghuddaudi, Pauri Garhwal on 30.12.1991 and was working as such since then. THEreafter in pursuance of an advertisement dated 3.9.2009 issued by Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, calling for eligible persons for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer Grade ?II on deputation basis, petitioner applied and was subsequently selected and appointed by letter dated 22.9.2010 for a period of five years. According to the petitioner, he was duly discharging his duties as Administrative Officer Grade-II. He was totally taken by surprise when the relieving order dated 24.12.2010 was served upon the petitioner by the borrowing department, by which the deputation of the petitioner has been cancelled and he has been repatriated to his parent department. THE validity of the impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that since the deputation was for a fixed period of five years, cutting short this period for no valid reasons is in fact arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has further stated that though he does not have any right to be absorbed on the post as his appointment is merely by way of deputation, yet a deputationist has certain rights and cutting short a fixed period of deputation without assigning any reasons is a bad order in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

(3.) IT is true that deputationist has not a right to be absorbed on the post. Moreover, his deputation period which is for a fixed period can also be cut short if the borrowing department has just and valid reasons in doing so. The just and valid reasons can be unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance of the deputationist, amongst other valid reasons. This is so, because merely if the order of deputation prescribes a time period it does not mean that the deputationist has an indefeasible right on the post or even that some kind of a contract has come into force between the parties, as has been held by a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court (In Soban Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1970 P & H (F.B.), 322).