M.S. PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the repatriation order dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure P/1) and consequential order dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure P/2).

(2.) The petitioner was taken on deputation by M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council (Council). The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was selected pursuant to advertisement Annexure P/4. Thus, this is not a normal deputation, but is a deputation by way of appointment. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on (Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India and another, 2012 7 SCC 757). It is contended that in this kind of deputation where deputationist is selected pursuant to an advertisement, he cannot be repatriated.

(3.) The second attack is on the ground that impugned order is adverse order and therefore, before repatriating petitioner to the parent department, principles of natural justice should have been followed. Shri Harish Dixit relied on (Shekhar Ghosh Vs. Union of India and another, 2007 1 SCC 331).