Raju Athanere vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7532 MP

                                                                         1
                                        IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                              ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2023
                                                         WRIT PETITION No. 10369 of 2023

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       RAJU ATHANERE S/O SHRI OMKAR ATHANERE, AGED
                                       ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BAC ( MIDDLE
                                       TEACHER)   R/O    BANAWA   PATWARI   COLNY
                                       JAYPRAKASH WARD NO 23 BETUL DISTRICT BETUL
                                       (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                                       (BY SHRI JITENDRA ARYA - ADVOCATE)

                                       AND
                                       1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                             SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL WELFARE
                                             AND DEVELOPMENT R/O VALLABH BHAWAN
                                             BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       2.    THE COMMISSIONER TRIBAL WELFARE AND
                                             D EVELOPM EN T BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       3.    THE   COLLECTOR B E T U L DISTRICT          BETUL
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       4.    THE DISTRICT PROJECT CO ORDINATOR
                                             DISTRICT EDUCATION CENTRE BETUL DISTRICT
                                             BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                       (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                             This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                                       following:
                                                                          ORDER

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.05.13 11:31:00 IST Petitioner's contention is that vide order dated 14/01/2021 Annexure P-2,

petitioner was appointed as 'Jan Shikshak' at Jan Shiksha Kendra Government Higher Secondary School Prabhudhana Vikaskhand Bheempur, District Betul.

It is submitted that his appointment was for a period of four years but arbitrarily vide order dated 21/04/2023 Annexure P-3, his deputation was withdrawn. He has been repatriated to his parent department.

Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Through Government of Pondicherry and another Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and others (2005) 8 SCC 394, it is submitted that deputation could not have been brought to an end, inasmuch as, petitioner was given appointment on deputation after due selection process as is evident from

Annexure P-2 Shri Manas Mani Verma in his turn submits that there were complaints against the petitioner. In Annexure P-2 itself, there is a stipulation that deputation was purely temporary. Clause 3 provides that a deputation was initially for a period of two years on temporary basis and it can be extended for a further period of two years depending on the work efficiency and quality of work of the petitioner.

As far as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in V. Ramakrishnan (supra) is concerned, it is held that where a deputation was for a specified term, then that cannot be curtailed except on grounds such as unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance and even when the term is not specified, reversion can be challenged, if the same is malafide.

Thus, in the absence of any malafides alleged by the petitioner and as petitioner had put in two years of initial engagement, therefore, it is not a case of Signature Not Verified SAN

arbitrarily curtailing the period of deputation and, therefore, on that ground, Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.05.13 11:31:00 IST

ratio of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of V.

Ramakrishnan (supra) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner.

Since there is a specific stipulation in regard to period of deputation initially for two years and its extension would be subject to work efficiency and quality of work discharged by the petitioner and if respondents were not satisfied with the quality of work of the petitioner, withdrawal of deputation does not call for any interference.

Accordingly the petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.05.13 11:31:00 IST