Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harivilash Gupta vs The State Of M.P. on 8 November, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
W.A. No.995 of 2021
Harivilash Gupta
-Versus-
The State of M.P. and Ors.
--
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ashish Anand Barnad, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
[Hearing convened through virtual/physical modes]
JUDGMENT
(Jabalpur, dtd.08.11.2021)
Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
The instant intra-court appeal has been filed under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand
Nyaypeeth to Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.16259 of 2019
(Harivilash Gupta vs. The State of M.P. and others], dated 28-7-
2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ-
petitioner/appellant has been dismissed.
2. The writ-petitioner/appellant [hereinafter referred to as
"the appellant] challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the
order dated 16-8-2021, whereby services of the appellant have been
repatriated to his parent department, i.e. School Education
Department, on the post of Assistant Teacher. The order was
challenged mainly on the ground that the appellant was sent on
deputation by order dated 30-12-2019, and normal period of
deputation is two years and that period is still not over. Therefore,
by the impugned order he could not be repatriated, that too when the
order of repatriation is stigmatic.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant assiduously urged
that without conducting any enquiry and affording an opportunity of
hearing to the appellant, his services have been directed to be
repatriated by the respondents and hence, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
4. Upon perusal of the order, it is luminescent that the
appellant was on deputation for more than ten years and there were
several complaints filed against him. A show cause notice was also
issued to the appellant on 28-6-2021 for submitting his stand, and
thereafter the authority came to the conclusion that the stand taken
by the appellant was not satisfactory and, therefore, he is required to
be repatriated to his parent department.
5. From a perusal of the order of deputation, dated 30-12-
2019, it is graphically clear that, earlier the deputation period of
three years of the appellant was completed, but in a counselling
conducted on 24-12-2019, he was again given an opportunity to
continue on deputation as a Block Resources Co-ordinator (BRC)
with a clear condition, that if it is found that the appellant is not able
to perform the obligation assigned to him, he can be removed from
deputation.
6. It is settled principle of law that deputation cannot be
claimed by way of right. The order of deputation dated 30-12-2019
is also not specific in respect of term/period, for which the appellant
was sent on deputation. On the contrary, the said order contains a
clause, that the deputation can be put to an end at any time.
7. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of facts and
law in proper perspective, held that the order of repatriation cannot
be said to be a stigmatic order, because it does not adversely affect
the service of the appellant and the said aspect is also not recorded
in his service book. The order passed by the authority is in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the deputation.
Therefore, no illegality is found on the conduct of the authority
while repatriating the appellant.
8. Since the appellant was on deputation and he has no
legal right to continue on the deputed post and on administrative
consideration, therefore, his services have been directed to be
repatriated to his parent department. We do not perceive any error
in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
petition preferred by the appellant.
9. Hence, no interference is called for in the present intra-
court appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ravi Malimath) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2021.11.11 12:07:24 +05'30'
