LAWS(RAJ)-2001-10-46

SURENDRA BIJAWAT AND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On October 05, 2001
SURENDRA BIJAWAT AND 32 OTHERS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions the petitioners, who are Assistant Engineers, Irrigation (Civil) in the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan, have challenged the order dated 29. 5. 2000 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No. 2 the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short `the respondent No. 2) whereby the petitioners have been sent on deputation on the post of Child Development Project Officer in the Women & Child Development Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the order dated 26. 5. 2000 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent No. 3 Director cum Special Secretary (Admn.) Women and Child Development Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for Short `the respondent No. 3') whereby the petitioners have been appointed in the Women & Child Development Department on deputation in the same pay scale on which they were placed in their parent Department.

(2.) IN nutshell the petitioner's case is that- (i) neither the Rajasthan Service of Engineers and Research Officer (Irrigation Branch) Rules 1954 (hereinafter shall be referred to as `the Rules of 1954') nor the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short `the Rules of 1951') authorise the respondent No. 2 to send the petitioners on deputation; (ii) the order of deputation was issued by the respondent No. 2 without taking assent of the petitioners for sending them on deputation, which is contrary to established principle of law; and, (iii) the order of deputation of the petitioners has been issued arbitrarily, without there being any policy framed by the Government, which can be said to be a reasonable policy, for selecting persons to be sent on deputation. The petitioners have been picked, to be sent on deputation, without there being any uniformed principle laid down in the policy. Further, it is not true that the posts of Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department are not available and, therefore, there was a need to send the petitioners on deputation.

(3.) IN the present case the petitioners having not sent on deputation to the defence services or the post connected with the defence of INdia for the emergency need. Rule 7-A of the Rules of 1954 has no application to the petitioners' case.