Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satya Prakash Tyagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 23 rd OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 1659 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SATYA PRAKASH TYAGI S/O SHRI JANKI PRASAD
TYAGI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BLOCK
ADMINISTRATOR COORDINATOR, JANPAD SHIKSHA
KENDRA KARELI R/O MIRJAN WARD, KARELI
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY RAM TAMRAKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. D IR ECTOR , RAJYA SIKSHA KENDRA B-WING,
PUSTAK BHAWAN, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR, DIVISION NARSINGHPUR,
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JILA PANCHAYAT
NARSINGHPUR, CUM DISTRICT PROJECT
D I R ECTOR , DISTRICT EDUCATION CENTER,
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI LALIT JOGLEKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present petition is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: APARNA TIWARI
Signing time: 1/25/2023
11:18:39 AM
dated 30.12.2022 (Annexure-P/6) passed by CEO-cum-District Project
Director, District Education Center, Narsinghpur whereby services of the
petitioner are being repatriated back to the parent department.
Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is working with the
School Education Department as Samvida Shala Sikshak Grade-II. He was
absorbed in the post of Adhyapak Samvarg in the year, 2007 and later on in
year, 2018, he became Middle School Teacher.
On 14.11.2019, Rajya Siksha Kendra issued a circular in which concept
of Block Academic Coordinator (for short "BAC") was contemplated as per
Samagra Siksha Abhiyan Mishan and, therefore, teachers formed the feeder
channel for appointment to the post of such BAC on deputation. One of the
clauses of circular envisages that for a fixed period, teachers (UDT and
teachers of middle school) would be taken on deputation to perform such
duties. In pursuance there of vide order dated 14.07.2020 (Annexure-P/2)
petitioner was placed under deputation as BAC for two years. Said order
categorically mentions the fact regarding tenure of deputation. As per the said
clause, tenure of deputation was two years and same is extendable to two years
on the basis of work performance and its quality of incumbent. It further
envisages that in case of any dis-satisfactory service, deputation could have
been terminated immediately.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was
appointed on post of BAC by the effect of said order and remained there for
more than two years. Now, vide impugned order dated 30.12.2022 (Annexure-
P/6) he has been unceremoniously removed from the said job and repatriated
back to his parent branch of School Education Department and handed over his
services to District Education Officer, Narsinghpur. Said approach is arbitrary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: APARNA TIWARI
Signing time: 1/25/2023
11:18:39 AM
and illegal because of the fact that petitioner completed two years on deputation
on 14.07.2022 and he worked till December, 2022 meaning thereby that
respondents impliedly extended his deputation. Without affording any
opportunity of hearing, order impugned is vitiated by the vice of principles of
natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed the order passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India and
Another (2012) 7 SCC 757 to submit that it is a case where petitioner was
appointed on deputation through selection and, therefore, retention at present
place is his legal rights.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State opposed the
prayer and submits that deputation period of petitioner was of two years and
after two years his work was not found satisfactory therefore, his services were
repatriated back to the parent department. He referred clauses 2 and 3 of the
order dated 14.07.2022 to bring home the said fact. It is further submitted that
his term comes to an end, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Heard.
This is a case where petitioner who was working as BAC on deputation
is aggrieved by his repatriation. It is settled in law that deputation is a
mechanism which is always meant for a particular exigency or for a tenure. Lien
of the employee always retained at his parent department and apparently a
contingent contract, he is borrowed by the borrowing department for the time
being. It's a tripartite agreement between employee, parent department and
borrowing department.
In the present set of facts, petitioner vide order dated 14.07.2020 was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: APARNA TIWARI
Signing time: 1/25/2023
11:18:39 AM
appointed on deputation as BAC. His parent department is School Education
Department where he was working as Teacher in Middle School. His borrowing
department appears to be Rajya Siksha Kendra. Order dated 14.07.2020 fixed
the time period for deputation as two years. Not only this, it has been
specifically mentioned that if the work of deputationist is not found satisfactory
or if he is found irresponsible in his duties or if he is found unfit to perform the
activities of the center or for any other administrative reason, he can be
removed from the said post. Even, it has been mentioned that after two years, if
the quality of work performed by an incumbent is not found satisfactory then he
can be repatriated back and if, his work is found to be satisfactory then
deputation can be extended for further two years but in any condition it may not
be more than four years. In order dated 14.07.2020, clause 1, 2 and 3 are
specific in their intention.
Here, in the present case, petitioner worked since 14.07.2020 to
30.12.2022. In other words, he completed his tenure of two years. It appears
that after that his work was not found satisfactory, therefore, on the basis of
complaint so received and assessment of work, his services were repatriated.
So far as, submissions of petitioner that opportunity of hearing ought to have
been given to the petitioner, same is misplaced for the reasons that for
repatriation which is the right of borrowing department cannot be curtailed by
the fetters of the principle of natural justice. Once tenure is completed and his
performance does not appeared to match the expectations of borrowing
department then he can always be repatriated. Extension of some months does
not give him any entitlement for retention.
Judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no help as it moves into
different factual realm.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: APARNA TIWARI
Signing time: 1/25/2023
11:18:39 AM
In the said case, appointment was specifically made on the basis of
deputation through selection where the advertisements was issued and
thereafter, regular recruitment procedure was taken for a fixed period in which
apparently no time period was mentioned on deputation. Here it is not a case.
Here his own appointment order specifically contemplates a particular time
period and the contingencies over which repatriation can be made. Invoking the
said contingencies/exigencies, if the borrowing departments repatriates the
employee to the parent department then no illegality has been caused.
In the considered opinion of this Court, no arbitrariness or illegality has
been caused while repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. He
already completed tenure of two years on deputation.
Cumulatively, case of the petition sans merit. It is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
AT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: APARNA TIWARI
Signing time: 1/25/2023
11:18:39 AM
