Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surajbhan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:21451]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8559/2025
Surajbhan S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village
Gugarwar, Tehsil Kuchaman, District Didwana-Kuchaman,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, School
Education And Language Department, Secretariat,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha And
Commissioner, School Education, Jaipur, Ground Floor
Block No.6, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional State Project Director-Ii, Rajasthan School
Education Council, Jaipur, Ground Floor Block No.6, Dr. S.
Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Additional District Project Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha,
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Udpadan Nigam Limited, A
Government Of Rajasthan Undertaking, Through Chief
Personnel Officer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Adv. With
Mr. Vipul Dharnia, res No.5
Mr. P.R. Singh, for res No.2
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/05/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order
dated 21.04.2025 (Annex.11) whereby the petitioner's services on
[2025:RJ-JD:21451] (2 of 5) [CW-8559/2025]
deputation have been cancelled and he has been repatriated back
to his parent department.
2. The facts are that respondent No.2, vide advertisement
dated 11.01.2023, invited applications for the post of Assistant
Engineer on deputation for a period of one year. In pursuance to
the said advertisement, petitioner applied and after being
selected, was afforded appointment on deputation with
respondent-Department vide order dated 14.08.2023. The said
appointment was for a period of one year.
3. Even before completion of the period of one year, the parent
department i.e. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Udpadan Nigam Limited -
respondent No.5 cancelled the said deputation vide order dated
14.02.2024 (Annex.9) and requested for repatriation of the
concerned employees to its department. However, the request of
respondent No.5-Department was not acceded at that point of
time but after completion of the period of one year on 14.08.2024,
the petitioner has been repatriated to its parent department vide
the order impugned dated 21.04.2025.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was in fact not a
'transfer on deputation' but was an 'appointment on deputation'
and hence as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar
Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India and Another; (2012) 7 SCC
757, the principles which are applicable in a case of 'transfer on
deputation' do not apply in the matter of 'appointment on
deputation'.
5. Counsel further submits that in identical facts in Navratan
Godara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.4448/2025 (decided on 03.03.2025), although the
[2025:RJ-JD:21451] (3 of 5) [CW-8559/2025]
writ petition as preferred by the petitioner therein was dismissed
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court but the Division Bench, in
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.527/2025 has stayed the effect and
operation of the order whereby deputation of the petitioner therein
had been cancelled.
6. Per contra counsel appearing for respondent No.2 -
Department submits that it is at the request of the parent
department that the deputation of the petitioner has been
cancelled and so far as the borrowing department is concerned, it
is under an obligation to return the services of an employee
whenever requested by the parent department.
7. Counsel further submits that even otherwise, no employee
can as a matter of right, claim to be continued on the post where
he has been posted on deputation. While relying on a judgment
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Naina Ram &
Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5324/2016 (decided on
01.11.2017) counsel submitted that the ratio of Ashok Kumar
Ratilal Patel (supra) has clearly been distinguished in the said
matter and therefore, the said ratio would definitely not apply in
the present matter.
8. Counsel further submits that the judgment passed in Naina
Ram & ors. (supra) has further been affirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Naina Ram & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.1013/2017 & other
connected matters (decided on 09.01.2018).
9. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5
submits that although the requisition for cancellation of deputation
was made by the department in the month of February, the same
[2025:RJ-JD:21451] (4 of 5) [CW-8559/2025]
has been cancelled only after the completion of one year period
and therefore, same does not deserve any interference as it is the
parent department which has a lien on the services of the
employee and the service conditions of the petitioner would
definitely be governed by the parent department.
10. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
11. So far as the ratio laid down in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel
(supra) is concerned, same would definitely not apply to the
present matter as therein, the employee, after being selected in
the process of appointment on deputation, was not permitted to
join. Therein the Court observed that once an offer had been
made by the department and accepted by the employee, the
offeror could not have resiled from the offer and the Court then
proceeded on to lay down a distinction between 'Transfer on
deputation' and 'Appointment on deputation'. However, the said
ratio would definitely not apply to the present matter as herein,
the petitioner was offered appointment after being selected in the
process and has even completed the period of one year of
deputation i.e. the period prescribed in his appointment letter.
12. So far as the cancellation of deputation is concerned, same is
definitely a right of the parent department. Admittedly a request
has been made by the parent department to respondent No.2 and
the said department is under an obligation to respect the
requisition of the parent department.
13. Further, as observed in Naina Ram (supra), any employee
who has completed his tenure of appointment on deputation has
no vested right to remain with the borrowing department and
repatriation to his substantively held post in the lending
[2025:RJ-JD:21451] (5 of 5) [CW-8559/2025]
department, cannot be faulted with. The ratio of Naina Ram
(supra) has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Naina Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Spl.
Appl. Writ No.1013/2017.
14. So far as the interim order being passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Navratan Godara's case (supra) is
concerned, it is evident that the Division Bench judgment in
Naina Ram's case (supra) is a final order whereas that in
Navratan's case (supra) is an interim order. This Court would
definitely be bound to follow the ratio as laid down by the Division
Bench in the case of Naina Ram (supra) which is a final order.
15. In view of the above facts and observations, the order
impugned does not deserve any interference and the writ petition
is hence, dismissed.
16. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
297-praveen/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
