MOHD DEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is not appearing to pursue and prosecute the case, after the case came before the motion Bench on 30 -07 -1996. He has not even appeared on last date of October 4, 1999. Though petitioner has not disclosed all the required bio -data of his service, yet even so, from record it appears that the petitioner is on the cadre of Chief Husbandry Department of the State Government and was on deputation with Desert Development Agency Leh and posted as Chief Project Officer there. It is alleged that under Order No. 383 dated: 18 -06 -1996, he has been reverted back to his parent Department. He has challenged this order, but strangely enough, not a copy of this order, is annexed to the writ petition. The order is not available on record. However, from annexure -A, it is seen that the petitioner has been reverted back to Sheep Husbandry Department on the cadre of Department he is born and is directed to report to Director Sheep and Husbandry Deptt. for further posting.

(2.) THE reversion of a deputationist can be at any stage either by lending or borrowing department. A deputationist has no vested right to remain on the cadre of the borrowing department. Merely, because the petitioner was given higher pay by the borrowing department, does not render the order of reversion bad. There is nothing wrong in repatriation of the petitioner on the cadre post of his parent department, which he was holding in substantive position.

(3.) IN result, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.