NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner is a substantive employee of the Social Security, Women and Child Development Department, Punjab where he holds the post of Child Development and Project Officer. By an order dated 29.10.2004, the petitioner was taken on deputation against the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab. The period of the petitioner's deputation was extended for another period of one year from 1.12.2005 to 30.11.2006. Yet again, by an order dated 4.12.2006, the period of the petitioner's deputation was extended from 1.11.2006 to 30.11.2007.

(2.) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has an indefeasible right to continue in the Rural Development and Panchayats Department, till 30.11.2007, in terms of the order dated 4.12.2006 (Annexure P -4). Despite the aforesaid order, the borrowing department, namely, the Rural Development and Panchayats Department has passed an order dated 12.4.2007, repatriating the petitioner to his parent department, namely the department of Social Security, Women and Child Development, Punjab. It is this matter which is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the petitioner.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was being reverted back to his parent department on account of the fact that the posts of Block Development and Panchayat Officers, in the Rural Development and Panchayats Department, are to be filled up, either by way of promotion or direct recruitment. In this behalf, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Rule 6 of the Punjab Rural Development and Panchayats (Group'A') Non -Technical Services Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 2002 Rules). Rule 6 of 2002 Rules, which is relevant to the present controversy is being extracted hereunder: