VIJAY SARASWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the orders impugned Annex. 4 dated 3. 9. 2005, Annex. 5 dated 13. 9. 2005 and Annex. 7 dated 3. 10. 2005.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and Another (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- " 8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority ). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. IN the case at hand all the three conditions were fulfilled. The University, the present department or lending authority, the Board, the borrowing authority and the appellant, the deputationist, had all given their consent for deputation of the appellant and for his permanent absorption in the establishment of the borrowing authority. There is no material to show that the deputation of the appellant was not in public interest or it was vitiated by favouritism or mala fide. The learned Single Judge in the previous writ petition had neither quashed the deputation order nor issued any direction for its termination. INdeed the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition. No material has been placed before us to show that between November 1987 when the judgment of the Single Judge was rendered and December 1991 when the Division Bench disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant the petitioners of the previous case had raised any grievance or made any complaint regarding non-compliance with the directions made in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. IN these circumstances the Division Bench was clearly in error in declining to grant relief to the appellant. Further, the appellant has, in the meantime, retired from service, and therefore, the decision in the case is relevant only for the purpose of calculating his retiral benefits. "