PRAMILA RAJAK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is serving in the Education Department, has assailed the order dated 23.5.2012, by which she has been repatriated to her parent department without any reasons. It is contended by the petitioner that she was taken on deputation to work as District Project Coordinator. For the said purposes, the respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 2.4.2010. The advertisement specifically mentioned that in 50 districts of the State, under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, one post each in every district, of the District Project Coordinator is sanctioned. The applications were invited only from the employees already serving in the Government services to be appointed on deputation on the said post. A cut off date was prescribed. The selection was made and thereafter the orders of appointment were issued in respect of persons. In fact, a tentative merit list was published inviting objections and thereafter the orders of appointment were independently issued to the selected candidates. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as District Project Coordinator in District Education Centre, Neemach, vide order dated 22.10.2010 and was later on transferred on her own request to District Education Centre Tikamgarh vide order dated 4.3.2011. The petitioner is discharging the duty at such a place after her relieving from Neemach. All of a sudden, a list was prepared and on 17.5.2012, it was intimated that those persons who have completed four years of deputation posting as District Project Coordinator were to be repatriated back to their parent department. Without there being any justified reasons even when the petitioner has not completed the period of four years, her name was included in the list and on 23.5.2012, the petitioner was repatriated to the parent department. It is contended that such an action was de hors the Scheme made by the respondents and, therefore, such an order was bad in law. It is contended that when the selection was initiated and a tentative list was published way back in 2010, the said action was called in question by some of the persons who were already working, before this Court and in their cases interim relief has been granted, therefore, such an order is initiated against the petitioner with malafide intention. It is contended that in terms of the provisions made in the M.P. Jan Shiksha Adhiniyam, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder, the action of the respondents is bad in law.

(2.) ON receipt of the notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed a return and have contended that the entire petition is based on misconceived and misleading facts. It is contended that the petitioner was taken on deputation and since for administrative reason, her deputation posting was not feasible, she was repatriated back to her parent department. Such a condition is specifically mentioned in the order of appointment issued in respect of the petitioner. It is contended that the judicial review of such an action of the respondents is not justified. It is claimed that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) RULE 18 of the Rules prescribes the duties and responsibilities of Zila Shiksha Kendra. Precisely this is the reason, the officers from Education branch are taken on deputation to be posted as District Project Coordinator because they have to function as Education Programme Officer-I. This being so, the applications were invited vide advertisement dated 2.4.2010, pursuance to which the petitioner has also made the application. She was considered, found fit and was included in the list. The manner in which the selection was to be done, was also prescribed by the respondent No.2 in the note sheet. After due approval, the order of appointment of petitioner was issued, but no period of deputation posting was prescribed. Later on, the petitioner was transferred to Tikamgarh where she has joined and is working. There were certain questions raised in the Legislative Assembly where the attachment of teachers in the Education Projects under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan were objected. The Government at the highest level had taken a decision to repatriate those who have completed a period of four years posting on deputation as District Project Coordinator. For that reason only memo was issued on 17.5.2012 Annx.P/12 by the Commissioner Rajya Shiksha Kendra. Apparently, the petitioner had not completed the period of four years posting on deputation and, therefore, there was no question of referring the matter for her repatriation as it was the policy made by the State Government which is to be inferred by the conduct of the respondents that a person taken on deputation is to be allowed to continue for a period of four years. The respondents have simply said that the petitioner has no vested right to be remained on deputation for a longer period. When the period itself was not completed, which is prescribed for such deputation posting and if it is curtailed in between on account of unsatisfactory performance of duties by the petitioner, it was necessary to point out such facts to the petitioner and then only to repatriate her to the parent department. Further, the deputation posting of the petitioner was required to be done with the consent of the parent department of petitioner. Before repatriation the services of the petitioner to the parent department neither any information was sent to the parent department nor any posting order was issued in respect of the petitioner by her parent department and, therefore immediate repatriation of the petitioner was not permissible. This being so, the explanation as extended by the respondents in support of the action of repatriation of the petitioner cannot be accepted.