INDRA VIKRAM SINGH CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dtd. 29/5/2019, whereby the Project Director (LP&SHG) Rajivika has, relying on provisions of Rule 144A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ('the Rules'), terminated the deputation of the petitioners and they have been repatriated to the parent department i.e. the Secondary Education Department.

(2.) It is, inter alia, submitted in the writ petitions that by order dtd. 3/7/2012 and 25/9/2013, the petitioners, who are Teachers Grade-III were appointed on deputation as PFT Manager/Coordinator, the order was passed by the State Mission Director, Rajivika Projects. Subsequent thereto, by order dtd. 16/4/2015 (Annex.-3), the petitioners were appointed as Accounts Assistant, DPMU again on deputation, which order was also issued by the State Mission Director. The petitioners continued to function in the said position when by order (Annex.-8) dtd. 29/5/2019, the Project Director noticing that the petitioners were appointed as PFT Manager/Coordinator on deputation on 3/7/2012 and 25/9/2013 respectively and were presently working with the District Project Management Unit, Jodhpur and Barmer and have spent 5 years 8 months and 6 years 10 months respectively with Rajivika and, therefore in terms of Rule 144A of the Rules, the deputation was put to an end and the petitioners were repatriated to the parent department.

(3.) It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of the respondents in putting to an end petitioners' deputation is ex-facie illegal, inasmuch as, the order putting to an end petitioners' deputation has not been passed by the competent authority. It was submitted that while the petitioners were accorded appointment on deputation by the State Mission Director Rajivika, the order impugned has been passed by the Project Director and, therefore, on said count, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.