RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is short is that he was initially appointed on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon on ad-hoc basis by the Ministry of medical and health, Government of Rajasthan w. e. f. 11. 12. 1970 and he served on the said post upto 9. 7. 1971 at P. H. C. Sanwar, District Udaipur and thereafter w. e. f. 10. 7. 1971 to 28. 1. 1973 on the same post at General Hospital, Bharatpur. During the period 29. 1. 1973 to 4. 3. 1975 the petitioner served in the same capacity in M. G. Hospital and as a lecturer in medicine in Dr. S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur. In the year 1974 the government of India had requested to the State Government of Rajasthan to recommend suitable names of desirous candidates who were willing to serve as Medical Officers at Libiya on deputation. Petitioner applied for the said post and conveyed his willingness to serve at Libiya.

(2.) ON receipt of the list of selected candidates, the petitioner having been selected for the foreign assignment, the State Government initiated action to relieve such doctors who were willing to go abroad and directed the concerned authorities vide its order dated 18. 10. 1975 (Annexure-2) to utilise the services of such doctors who had conveyed their willingness to go abroad. Perusal of the said document reveals that the Deputy Secretary to the government of Medical & Public Health Department, Jaipur had sent a communication to the Director of Medical & Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as to the principals of all the Medical Colleges inrajasthan to relieve doctors who had been selected for foreign assignment to Libiya, since the said doctors were required to join Libiya government by a specified date. It was further directed that in case of temporary government servants, no objection certificate was issued after obtaining concurrence of the finance department for retention of their lien on the posts which they were holding or occupying prior to being relieved for their foreign assignment subject to the terms and conditions and were to be treated as on deputation. The case of the petitioner further is that immediately on expiry of the period of the deputation he was relieved from his assignment at Libiya on 04. 12. 1975 and he reported to the Government of Libiya on 04. 12. 1975 and he reported to the Government of Libiya on 05. 12. 1975 but since hisrequest for return to India was not accorded to by government of Rajasthan, he con- tinued to serve as Consultant Physician in A1 Gella Maternity/al Khetra General Hospital at Tripoli upto 14. 03. 1993. The petitioner has further contended that during the period 04. 12. 1975 to 14. 03. 1993, he did not receive any single communication from the State of Rajasthan either directly or through Indian Embassy at Libiya though his period of deputation had expired and that he should report back to duty at S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur where he last served prior to his posting at Libiya, which practice was being consistently followed by the State Government for the return of Doctors from foreign postings who were sent abroad on deputation. Since the petitioner had become home-sick and was not in a position to leave Libiya till he was called back by the State Government, whenever he contacted the Indian Emba- ssy Consular Service at Tripoli (Libiya), he was informed that no reply to his communications has been received from the State Government of Rajasthan and as such they expressed their helplessness to assist the petitioner in any manner. During the aforesaid period, the petitioner was getting his passport extended andrenewed through the Indian Embassy at Tripoli from time to time as he was on depu- tation and had lien with the State Government of Rajasthan.

(3.) PRIMA facie I am of the opinion that once the petitioner was fully aware of the implications of the terms and conditions of the foreign assignment and this fact was fully made clear to him from the letter dated 10. 7. 1973 (Annexure R/3) as well as the letter dated 29. 1. 1988 from the Ministry of Personnel and Training, Government of India to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and union territories vide Annexure r/2 not to stay on a foreign posting beyond the specified period of deputation and hence in case of sponsored candidates like the petitioner it becomes a binding obligation on the part of the concerned official who has been sponsored by the State Government to a foreign Government on an assignment not to extend his stay beyond the period of deputation without taking express permi- ssion in writing from the concerned State Government which has sent such official on deputation abroad. The aforesaid fact is fully borne out from the document Annexure R/2 as referred to above. In para 4. 6 of the Annexure R/2 as referred to above. In para 4. 6 of the Annexure R/2 as referred to above. In Para 4. 6 of the Annexure R/2 dated 29. 1. 1988 which deals with duration of assignmen t on depu- tation of sponsored officials it has been provided that a sponsored official may be allowed to accept foreign assignment upto a maximum period of five years and a non-sponsored official upto a maximum period of two years during his entire career. In this regard I am of the view that the contention advanced by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that no period of deputation was specified is entirely base- less and is contrary to the record and rather I am of the view that the petitioner was in full know of the facts and before accepting this foreign assignment on deputation to Libiya and after having accepted the said assignment as a sponsored official for a fix duration, i. e. , five years which stood expired on 3. 12. 1980 if reckoned w. e. f. 4. 12. 1975, it was the mandatory requirement of the rules for the petitioner to have reported back to the Government of Rajasthan immediately on the expiry of the said period while the contractual assignment was only for a period of two years unless renewed for further extended period and this fact is borne out from the documents dated 10. 7. 1973 (Annexure R/1) on the record. Hence it is not open to the petitioner to plead to the contrary to the rules or to take a stand which is not borne out from the aforesaid document on the record. I am further of the view that the terms of contractual assignments are binding on the concerned parties and one having accepted the foreign assignment subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated in such contractual appointments, it is not open to the defaulting parties to take undue advantage of the situation at first instance by overstaying in foreign country against the terms and condition of such contractual appointment and thereafter to plead that he was ready and willing to come back to India though not permitted to do so by the government of India as it has happened in the instant case. I am of the view that in fact the petitioner had no business to overstay in Libiya after the expiry of his deputation which is not only contrary to the State Govern- ment's instructions issued from time to time but is also contrary to the standing instructions of the government of India as referred to above.