GOVIND VALLABH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 13/2/18 whereby the deputation of the petitioner has been cancelled and the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent post in parent Department without assigning any reason.

(2.) It is alleged that the order impugned is totally a non speaking order wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner services are not required in the department, therefore, he has been repatriated to the parent department. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not transferred by way of deputation and it is not the ordinary case of deputation rather the petitioner was appointed by way of deputation in Rajya Shiksha Kendra. Thus, he cannot be repatriated to his parent post in parent Department in such a manner as has been done by the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner in the earlier round of litigation being W.P. No.1311/2014 has challenged the repatriation order dated 18/2/14 and the order was set aside by the Hon'ble Court on the ground that as per the terms of the deputation order, only the State Government can repatriate the petitioner and the Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra has no power to order repatriation of the petitioner. Again an order has been passed by the Director Public Instructions and not by the State Government repatriating the petitioner which itself is contrary to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the earlier round of litigation. It is further alleged that there is a distinction between appointment and transfer on deputation and the aforesaid aspect was taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v/s Union of India and another, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 757 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if an employee has been appointed on deputation than repatriation is permissible only if he has been found unsuitable to perform the duties and not otherwise. In the present case there is no allegation regarding non proper performance of duties by the petitioner. It is only a simple four line order wherein it is mentioned that - ... VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED...

(3.) Thus, the repatriation order is per se illegal and is against the settled legal position by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra). He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.