SUDHAKAR TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 5/11/2012 Annexure-P/4 whereby the petitioner is repatriated back to his parent department.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner while working as Adhyapak in his parent Department (Panchayat Department), preferred his candidature for the post of Block Academic Co- ordinator (BAC). The respondents vide order dated 27/08/2011 appointed the petitioner on deputation for a period of three years. Before completion of said period, the petitioner was repatriated by the impugned order dated 5/11/2012. Before passing this order, the petitioner's parent department promoted the petitioner on proforma basis by order dated 09/07/2012, Annexure-P/3. Mr. R.P. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner criticised the repatriation order by taking assistance from Rule 13 of M.P. Jan Shiksha Niyam, 2003. He submits that the nomination of Jan Shikshak is for a period of atleast three years. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 13, makes it clear that the petitioner's period cannot be curtailed and therefore, his premature repatriation runs contrary to Rule 13(3) of the said Rules. In addition, he submits that pursuant to interim order the petitioner continued on the same post for sometime, but later on, he was unceremoniously repatriated, despite the fact that interim order passed by this Court is still in operation. Thus, repatriation order may be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that petitioner's perfomance during deputation was not satisfactory. A series of notices were issued to the petitioner, which are cumulatively filed as Annexure-R-2. A conjoint reading of these notices would show that various authorities on different occasions have recorded their dis-satisfaction and directed the petitioner to show cause. Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee placed reliance on the conditions of deputation order dated 27/08/2011 and contended that in view of these conditions the petitioner's repatriation is justifiable. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.