STATE OF M.P. Vs. VIBHA DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Calling in question the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.1.2009, passed in Writ Petition(S) No.2349/2004, this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed. It is contended that findings recorded by the learned Single Judge were not correct in view of the fact that specific provisions made for making recruitment on the post which were sanctioned after establishing a new directorate of Women and Child Development, known as the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for brevity) were not followed. It is contended that since the recruitment rules were not framed for the said directorate at the relevant time, the Rules aforesaid were to be followed. It is contended that specific instructions were given by the State Government on 21.8.1986 for screening of the cases of those who were desirous of coming on deputation to serve in the new directorate and, as such, the respondent No.1 was taken on deputation only for her posting as District Women and Child Development Officer. It is contended that in view of this if the services of the respondent No.1 were repatriated by the department, no interference whatsoever was called for in the said order and, in fact, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was thus contrary to the provisions of law. The order impugned is, thus, liable to be set aside.

(2.) It is briefly contended by learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of appellants that the State Government took a decision to bifurcate the projects of Women and Child Development which were being run by the Panchayat and Social Justice Department at the relevant time and to carve out a new directorate of Women and Child Development. For the purposes to mann the posts which were sanctioned in the said new directorate, the State Government decided to take certain persons on deputation. For the said purposes, the instructions were issued, the cases were screened and after selection, the order was passed taking such persons on deputation. However, at a later sage, the State Government directed to repatriate the services of those persons who were taken on deputation and, accordingly, the order was issued in respect of the respondent No.1. The said order was called in question in the writ petition. After filing of the reply, placing on record all the relevant documents, it was pointed out by the appellants that the respondent No.1 was never treated as a person appointed on the post. On the other hand, she was only a deputanist and, therefore, was rightly repatriated to her parent department. It is contended that this fact was also admitted by the respondent No.1 by making a correspondence at the initial stage that she was only working on deputation and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that the respondent No.1 was in fact appointed on the post and was not on deputation. As such, it is contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that the order of appointment issued in respect of the respondent No.1 discloses that the respondent No.1 in fact was appointed on the post and not taken on deputation to be posted as District Women and Child Development Officer. Drawing attention of this Court to the documents filed along with the writ petition which have been placed on record of this writ appeal as well, it is contended that in fact the High Power Committee was constituted in terms of the instructions so issued by the State Government. The respondent No.1 was issued a letter for her appearance before the High Power Committee. The High Power Committee constituted including Principal Secretary of the Revenue, Secretary of the Finance Department, General Administration Department, Tribal Welfare Department and Rural Development Department as also the Director of Women and Child Development, considered candidature of all such candidates on 4.9.1986 and 19.9.1986. Thereafter, the select list was prepared in which the name of respondent No.1 was included. Consequently, the order was issued in respect of respondent No.1 categorically saying that she is being appointed on the post vide order dated 24.10.1986. Since the respondent No.1 was duly appointed on the said post, her case was not considered in terms of the circular dated 21.8.1986 for taking her on deputation, it was rightly held by the learned Single Judge that the respondent No.1 was in fact appointed and not taken on deputation in the Women and Child Development Department. Further, it is contended that similar issues were looked into by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, the orders of repatriation were quashed by the Tribunal; against which order, the appeals were preferred before the Apex Court by the State Government and such appeals have been dismissed. The issue has already been decided and, therefore, there was no occasion to repatriate the services of the respondent No.1 in such illegal manner. It is contended that the aforesaid documents were taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and well reasoned findings have been given with respect to the appointment of the respondent No.1 in the Women and Child Development Department and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge need not be interfered with.