Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Chattisgarh High Court
Kamal Narayan Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 April, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

             Writ Petition (S) No. 3388 of 2007




                 Kamal  Narayan Chandrakar



                       ...Petitioners
                            VERSUS

                1.     State   of  Chhattisgarh

                 2.   The Managing Director

                 3.   The Collector

                 4.   District Project Coordinator


                             ...Respondents
!          Shri Anup Majumdar

^          Shri A.S. Kachhwaha


           Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J

 Dated:04/04/2008 

: Judgment 

                         ORAL ORDER
               (Passed on 04th of April, 2008)

1. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 05.05.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, whereby, the petitioner was repatriated back to the Education Department on being found not suitable on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Mahasamund.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was sent on deputation for a period of three years on 08.08.2005. Before completion of the period of three years i.e. 07.08.2008, the petitioner was repatriated back to the education department on the ground that the petitioner being Assistant Teacher is not qualified to be sent on deputation on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator/Assistant Programme Coordinator on 05.05.2007 (Annexure P/1).

3. Shri Anup Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 05.05.2007 be quashed as it is stigmatic holding that the petitioner does not posses the required qualification. Secondly, the order recalling back the services of the petitioner from the deputation is without consent of the petitioner as well as without consent of the employer. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law on the ground that the petitioner was recalled back to the parent department before completion of the period of deputation, which cannot be done without substantive reasons.

4. Per contra, Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 & 4 would submit that the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan of Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, all the Primary Schools were up-graded to Upper Primary Schools. The Teachers required earlier for the Primary Schools were Assistant Teachers like the petitioner. They were, accordingly, deputation but after up-gradation of the Primary Schools to Upper Primary Schools, more qualified teachers are required. The petitioner, being Assistant Teacher, has been repatriated back on the ground of up gradation of the Schools. As per guidelines of Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, earlier the qualification was as under:

"fodkl[kaM L=ksr dsUnz leUo;d% ,v+ Lukrd dh mikf/k vFkok ,c+ 'kkldh; 'kkyk esa dk;Zjr O;k[;krk@f'k{kd@l0f'k{kdA ,c+ O;kid Hkze.k ,oa tulaidZ dh {kerk ,l+ f'k{kk ds izfr :fp ,oa yxuA"

5. Thereafter, after upgradation, the qualification of Block Resource Coordinator is as under:

"fodkl[kaM L=ksr dsUnz leUo;d% vfuok;Z 1- izf'kf{kr f'k{kd@iz/kkuikBd] iwoZ ek/;fed 'kkyk@O;k[;krkA okaNuh; 2- vdknfed ekuhVfjax dk vuqHko dks izkFkfedrkA 3- xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa O;kid Hkze.k djus dh {kerk gksA 4- ifj;kstuk esa dk;Z djus dk vuqHkoA^^

6. In view of the policy decision of the State Government, it became necessary to recall back all the Assistant Teachers to the Education Department and the Teachers who are having qualification required for Block Resource Centre Coordinator remains there on deputation.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that it is not a case of simplicitor repatriation before completion of the deputation period.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others1 while considering the deputation and repatriation to the parent cadre/department on expiry of period of deputation held as under :-

"18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above....."

9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and another2 has defined `deputation' in the following terms:-

"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 organization (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (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 service by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not."

10. In the case of an employee if his suitability to the post is under question because of misdemeanor or other conduct or other reasons, the borrowing department may repatriate the employee to the parent department prematurely or parent department may consider to repatriate the deputationist prematurely. (See Judgment dated 04.04.2008, passed in W.P. No. 2298/2008 (Ajay Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), and connected matters).

11. It is clear from the return filed by the State Government that the State Government has taken a decision to upgrade Primary Schools to Upper Primary Schools under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, wherein, the teachers alone have suitable qualification and experience. The Assistant Teachers are not suitable to the posts. Therefore, decision of the government is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. The apprehension of the petitioner that impugned order is stigmatic has no basis as the petitioner has no right to the post in borrowing department. It is simply a repatriation of the petitioner as Assistant Teachers do not have such qualification as required for the post in the borrowing department.

12. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs.

JUDGE