LAXMIKANT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to two orders, one by which the respondent No. 5 is taken on deputation to be posted as B.R.C.C. in the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan under the control of the Rajya Shiksha Kendra and the other order by which the services of the petitioner have been repatriated and he has been posted in the Tribal Department of Sidhi district. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was working in a school established by the Tribal Department within the Sidhi district and under the policy made by the State Government since the school was transferred to the School Education Department, the petitioner became the member of the services in the School Education Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Since a scheme was made by the State Government on 03.01.2006 fixing the seniority of those who were said to be working on deputation in the respective department where the schools were transferred under the scheme of 1995 and it was categorically provided that if option is not given for absorption in particular department where the school is transferred, it will be deemed that such employee is absorbed in the respective department where the school has been transferred, the petitioner should have been treated to be absorbed in the School Education Department. However, since the petitioner was taken on deputation after the shifting of his school treating as if the petitioner is a member of the services of the Tribal Department, he has been repatriated back to the said department and a posting order is issued on 17.09.2012 and by the order of the even date the respondent No. 5 has been posted in place of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that this could not have been done as repatriation of the petitioner is to a wrong department and there was no posting order issued in his respect. In terms of the policy made by the Rajya Shiksha Kendra, the relieving of the petitioner was permissible only when the posting order is issued by the parent department from where his services were taken on deputation. It is further contended that the respondent No. 5 could not have been taken on deputation as he is only a Varishtha Adhyapak and for the said category persons it was specifically provided in the scheme of the Rajya Shiksha Kendra that the deputation posting was to be ordered only when an order is issued by the State Government. Contending inter alia on these grounds, the petitioner has sought the relief as indicated herein after:

(2.) No interim relief was granted in the present writ petition to the petitioner and he stood relieved from the deputation post. A return has been filed by the respondents-State and it has been contended that since the petitioner had completed the age of 48 years and since he has further completed 4 years of posting on deputation, he was to be repatriated to his parent department and to that extent the order was issued by the competent authority. It is contended that since the petitioner was taken on deputation while he was working in the Tribal Department, the petitioner has rightly been repatriated to the Tribal Department and no fault can be found in the order so issued by the respondents-State. The respondent No. 5 has been selected for his posting on deputation as B.R.C.C. and this order has been issued, therefore, there cannot be any fault in directing relieving of the petitioner and posting of respondent No. 5. Thus, it is contended that the petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The respondent No. 5 has filed independent return and has contended that in terms of the policy made, the respondent No. 5 was selected for his deputation posting, orders in that respect were issued and since he has given his joining, interference in the order of posting is not called for. It is further pointed out by filing additional return by the respondent No. 5 that instructions in respect of issuing the order of posting in case of those, who were to be repatriated, were given by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Madhya Pradesh, on 19.03.2012 and all the Collectors of respective districts were authorized to make the posting orders. In terms of the policy made, the authorization was granted by the School Education Department in respect of deputation posting of persons like respondent No. 5 on 26.05.2011 and by virtue of such order, further instructions were issued by the Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra, on 03.01.2012 authorizing posting of the persons like respondent No. 5. Thus, it is contended that actions taken by the respondents are just and proper and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.