Madhya Pradesh High Court
J.P. Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 31 st OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 169 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
J.P. MISHRA S/O LATE H.C. MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 63
Y E A R S , REGISTRAR MAHARAJA CHHATRASAL
BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A.S. RAIZADA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI AJEET SHRIVASTAVA, DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
BARKATULLAH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI V.P. TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on admission.
2. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner taking
exception to the order dated 28.12.2022 (Annexure P/4) whereby the petitioner
who was working as Registrar of Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundelkhand University,
Chhatarpur on deputation has been repatriated in the same University.
Signature Not Verified
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner was initially
Signed by: ASHISH DATTA
Signing time: 2/1/2023
6:21:34 PM
posted as Assistant Professor (Economics) on 15.11.1983. With the passage
of time he was promoted to the post of Professor (Economics). Vide order
27.08.2021, the petitioner was placed on deputation as Registrar of Maharaja
Chhatrasal Bundelkhand University, Chhatarpur for one year or till further
orders. On 31.08.2022 his tenure was come to an end. Vide order dated
14.09.2022 (Annexure P/3), State Government extended the tenure for further
six months or till further orders whichever is earlier. Vide impugned order dated
28.12.2022 he has been repatriated back to his parent department i.e. Higher
Education Department.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that same is
arbitrary and illegal. He referred gazette notification dated 13.12.2017 of
Madhya Pradesh State University Service Rules, 1983 to submit that the post of
Registrar is to be filled up either through direct appointment or through
promotion or through deputation.
5. In case of any candidate being appointed on deputation, the
petitioner deserves to be retained till he completes his six months on
14.03.2023. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Apex Court
in the case of T.R. Subramaniyam Vs. Union of India, 2013 (15) SCC 732 and
submits that fixed tenure of civil servant is prescribed by the Apex Court
therefore, the repatriation of the petitioner is bad in law.
6. Petitioner sought parity vis-a-vis the order dated 13.01.2023 passed
in W.P.No. 280 of 2023.
7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that
the term of the petitioner was at the discretion of authorities and authorities have
exercised their discretion in just manner. He relied on order dated 18.01.2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH DATTA
Signing time: 2/1/2023
6:21:34 PM
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 57 / 2023
(I.K. Mansoori Vs. State of M.P. and others) and submitted that in the same
impugned order dated 28.12.2022 which was under challenge before Division
Bench, the name of the petitioner therein also figures and since said order has
been passed and affirmed subsequently by the Division Bench, therefore, order
of Single Bench is of persuasive/precedential value. He prayed for dismissal of
petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
9. This is a case where the petitioner, whose parent department is
Higher Education Department, was posted on deputation for one year or till
further orders by the State Government. Earlier his deputation was extended till
31.08.2022. It appears that after period of deputation came to an end on
31.08.2022, then vide order dated 14.09.2022 deputation was extended for
further six months or further orders as the case may be.
10. Now exercising that power, authority which had sent the petitioner
o n deputation rescinded the said retention and called him to join at Parent
department. The order of deputation is clear and categorical and deserves no
interpretation further. The authority which has granted the benefit of deputation
and placed him on deputation rescinded the same. Therefore, it cannot be
inferred that the petitioner deserves to be retained till 14.03.2023. The extension
order categorically contemplates either six months or till further orders. The Co-
ordinate Bench at Indore in W.P.No. 1672/2021 ( Dr. D.K. Sharma Vs.
State of M.P. and other) has considered in similar facts situation and passed
the order dated 22.02.2021. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the
petitioner is repatriated back to his parent department then no arbitrariness or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH DATTA
Signing time: 2/1/2023
6:21:34 PM
illegality has been caused.
11. So far as reliance placed by the petitioner upon the judgment of
Apex Court in P.R. Subramaniyam (supra) is concerned, same is of not of any
help to the petitioner because here the petitioner has been repatriated back to his
parent department whereas, the said judgment moves in different factual realm
wherein, the tenure of civil servant is prescribed. Parity cannot be drawn.
Petitioner is a member of collegiate education serviced and is not a civil servant
and he has been repatriated as per the order of deputation itself.
12. Petitioner relied on order dated 13.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.
280 of 2023, however, the said order is passed in peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and in absence of any discussion so made, it has not
decided the point raised before this Court, therefore, this order cannot be taken
into consideration at all to draw parity.
13. The petition sans merit is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH DATTA
Signing time: 2/1/2023
6:21:34 PM
