ROHIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH this case has a convoluted history, but as the case has come up on the third stay application, all the facts of the case need not be narrated at this stage. Moreover, all the issues being raised need not be addressed, for any observation made by this Court may adversely affect the final out come of the writ petition.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Rohit Singh was appointed as a Project Engineer (Senior) in July, 1995 with the Rajasthan Housing Board ('the RHB', for short). On 10.05.2002, the petitioner was sent on deputation from RHB to the Jaipur Development Authority ('the JDA', for short). IN pursuance of the said order, on 17.05.2002, the petitioner was relieved from the RHB and joined the JDA. Vide order dated 08.06.2004 and in consequence of its decision taken on 17.11.2001, the JDA decided to create thirteen posts of Sector Engineer which were to be filled in only by deputation. Meanwhile, after expiry of three years of deputation, the petitioner's term of deputation was extended for a period of one year w.e.f. 17.05.2005. On 02.05.2005, the Government of Rajasthan asked for no objection from the JDA for permanently absorbing the petitioner in the JDA. Vide order dated 06.05.2005, the JDA gave its consent to the Government. Consequently, on 17.08.2005, the Government sanctioned the petitioner's absorption in the JDA. Consequently, the JDA has asked the petitioner to submit his joining report. On 17.08.2005, the petitioner submitted his joining report; he was permanently relieved from the RHB.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. R.N. Mathur, the learned counsel for the JDA, has strenuously, contended that the petitioner was sent to the JDA on deputation. A deputationist does not have a lien over any post. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim, by way of right, that he should be absorbed. In fact, it is entirely the employer's discretion whether to absorb an employee or not. In the present case, the JDA has decided not to absorb the petitioner. Such a decision has been taken on the advise of the personnel department. Therefore, the order dated 14.07.2009 has been passed legally; the same should not be interfered with. Lastly, the petitioner has already been relieved and the charge has been handed-over to another employee. Hence, the status quo ante cannot be restored.