ANGREJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court impugning order dated 01/03.06.2011 (Annexure P-5), which has been passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana-respondent No. 2 repatriating the petitioner to his parent department i.e. Director General, Horticulture Department, Haryana, with immediate effect.

(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Department of Horticulture on 27.11.1995 and continued as such till a letter dated 07.09.2005 (Annexure P-1) was received from the Chief Secretary, vide which recruitment, in the Haryana Civil Secretariat, of Drivers on transfer basis was sought to be made and the candidates, who were interested in the said process of selection, were called upon to submit their applications through proper channel. Petitioner, in pursuance to the said communication, submitted an application, which was duly forwarded by the Director, Horticulture Department, Haryana. Interview was held on 19.10.2005, in which the petitioner participated and was selected. In pursuance to the order dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure P-3), petitioner submitted his joining report on 10.11.2005 (Anneuxre P-4) in the Civil Secretariat, Haryana. He continued as such till the order dated 01/03.06.2011 was passed repatriating him to his parent department. Counsel contends that this order of repatriation is in violation of the terms and conditions of his appointment as is spelt out from the order of appointment dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure P-3). He contends that although the appointment of the petitioner was on purely temporary basis but there was a specific clause, according to which, he could only be repatriated back to his department, in case there was no vacancy, against which he could be appointed or continued to officiate in the Haryana Civil Secretariat. He further contends that there was a specific clause (vi), which deals with the seniority of the officials which was fixed as per the normal rules/instructions governing the same. He, on this basis, contends that order dated 01/03.06.2011 (Annexure P-5) cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside. Another plea, which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that there are still some vacancies available, on which the petitioner can be adjusted and since the vacancy is available and the posts also are there, the petitioner should have been allowed to continue in the Civil Secretariat.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The appointment order of the petitioner clearly spells out that the appointment of the petitioner was as a temporary driver in the Haryana Civil Secretariat on transfer basis. The selection and appointment of the petitioner in the Civil Secretariat being on purely temporary basis itself shows the intention and purpose, for which he was placed there. The condition, which has been sought to be invoked in the appointment letter to challenge the order dated 01.06.2011 that he could only be repatriated, in case there was no vacancy, against which he could be continued, would have served the purpose of the petitioner had there been no exigency, as has been faced in the present case by the Director of Horticulture. For administrative convenience, it was for the appropriate authority to see and decide as to whether the services of an employee can be best utilized and are required. It is not the case of the petitioner nor is it of the respondents that by relieving the petitioner from the Civil Secretariat, the work at the Civil Secretariat would, in any manner, be hampered or affected but in the light of the communication and the request dated 16.05.2011 (Annexure R-1/1) from the Director General, Horticulture Department, Haryana, it is apparent that he had been rightly, on the request of the department, repatriated to his parent department. An employee, who is appointed on temporary basis and that too, on deputation basis, although by means of transfer but temporarily cannot claim as a matter of right to continue there despite there being a request by the parent department for his repatriation and to which the department, which had taken him on deputation, has no objection to he holds lien in his parent department and, therefore, his rights are protected and by his repatriation, there is no loss caused to him. The apprehension of the petitioner that his seniority would be affected in his parent department, is totally misconceived as it has been stated in the reply filed by the respondents that he was sent on deputation only and he retained his lien in his parent department.