Orissa High Court

Santanu Kumar Behera vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 14 November, 2025

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.P.(C) NO. 32374 OF 2025

       In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
       Constitution of India.

       Santanu Kumar Behera                               ....                Petitioner

                                          -Versus-

       State of Odisha & others                           ....            Opp. Parties


       Advocates appeared in this case:

       For Petitioner        :      M/s. Manoj Kumar Mohanty,
                                    T. Pradhan & A. Mohanty,
                                    Advocates

       For Opp. Parties      :      Mr. U.C. Behura,
                                    Addl. Government Advocate

       CORAM:

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
                                     JUDGMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and judgment : 14.11.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the

order dated 07.11.2025 issued by the District Education Officer-cum-

DPC at Annexure-5, whereby he, along with four others, has been

repatriated to the parent department.

2. For ease of understanding, the text of the impugned order is

reproduced:

"OFFICE ORDER No. 5137 /Pdg./25/Date: 07/11/25 In pursuance of OSEPA Letter No. 12450, dated 30.00.2022 & Letter No.6040, dated 21.05.2022, and as per the approval of the Collector-cum-Chairman, Samagra Shiksha, Mayurbhanj, the following Level-IV Headmasters who are continuing as Cluster Resource Centre Coordinators (CRCCs) are hereby reverted back to their parent post of Headmaster, Level-IV with immediate effect.

      Sl.     Block            Name of the CRCC          Present Place of
      No.                                                Posting as CRCC
      1       Rasgobindapur    Santanu Kumar Behera      Patharchatia
      2       Bahalda          Barun Kumar Patra         Tarana
      3       Bahalda          Rabi Narayan Sethi        Jharadihi
      4       Jashipur         Dinesh Kumar Mohanta      Barehipani
      5       Karanjia         Sujit Kumar Patra         Batpalsa

The reverted Headmasters are directed to hand over the charge of CRCC to the concerned Block Education Officer immediately and report at their parent school/post without delay.

The concerned Block Education Officers are instructed to ensure proper handing over and taking over of details charges and submit report along with the date of joining & relieve of the above CRCCs to the undersigned within 07 (seven) days from the date of issue of this order.

By order of the Collector-cum-Chairman Samagra Siksha, Mayurbhanj"

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the

deputation having happened after due selection process and its tenure

being five years, the impugned order of the kind could not have been

made cutting short the specified period. He also tells the Court that

impugned order is liable to be voided, since it has been made without

giving an opportunity of hearing and thus there being breach of principles

of natural justice. Learned AGA-Mr. Behura appearing for the OPs resists

the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and

the reasons on which it has been structured. He submits that unless the

rule creates a right to remain on deputation, a deputationist cannot cling

on to a foreign department/post. He also submits that the OPs, being the

competent authorities, have the prerogative to deploy their staff

depending upon the exigencies of service and that Writ Court cannot

intervene in matters like this.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused

petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly

agreeing with the submission of learned AGA.

4.1. Before delving into the matter, let me give a thumbnail idea of

deputation. Samaraditya Pal in his treatise 'LAW RELATING TO

PUBLIC SERVICE' Third Edition at paragraph 145.1 describes as under:

"The concept of deputation in the law relating to public service is in essence derived from the significance of the word 'deputy' and the appropriate meaning of 'deputy' in this context would be 'substitute'. From this pivotal sense of substitution, many of the incidents of

deputation discussed here will follow logically. Although it is usually said that a person has been appointed on deputation, the better expression would be 'assignment on deputation'. It would, therefore, be more proximate to accuracy to describe deputation 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)... ... ... "

4.2. Firstly, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been on

deputation and that it is the lender department which is recalling him and

others back to the parent department. It is not that the recall cannot be

done, inasmuch as power to send on deputation includes the power to

rescind it in terms of Section 22 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937,

which reads as under:

"22. Power to make to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind, orders, rules or by-laws:- Where, by an Orissa Act, a power to mate or issue notifications, orders, schemes, rules, by-laws or forms, is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, (if any) to and to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, schemes, rules, by- laws or forms so made or issued."

Therefore, the first contention as to competence is answered in favour of

OPs and against the petitioner.

4.3. What is the illegality in the exercise of above power, is not

demonstrable from the record. In the exigency of service, petitioner and

other employees were deputed and they are liable to be repatriated on the

same ground. Ordinarily, it is the prerogative of the employer to deploy

his staff wherever he wants, and in such matters judicial intervention is

unwarranted. These are all matters left to the domain of executive and the

constitutional Courts cannot run a race of opinions with the executive.

The Apex Court in Union of India v. Ramakrishnan, 2005 SCC (L & S)

1150, has observed at paragraph 32 as under:

"32. Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. A deputationist indisputably has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. However, there is no bar thereto as well. It may be true that when deputation does not result in absorption in the service to which an officer is deputed, no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as he is continued to be a member of the parent service. When the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance."

The inner voice of this judgment recognizes the State's Prerogative to

make best use of persons in public employment to subserve the interest of

public administration, subject to all just exceptions. The fact that the

deputation is being followed by a selection process, does not make any

difference. That being said, it would have been ideal, if the impugned

order had given a short reason for repatriation.

4.4. The vehement submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that his client ought to have been heard in the matter, is difficult to

countenance, inasmuch as the conditions of the service are not prejudiced.

Merely because some allowance admissible to the deputationists will not

be available after repatriation, does not amount to breach of service

conditions. It hardly needs to be stated that the allowance has elements of