[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajender Kumar Bishnoi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 January, 2026

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2026:RJ-JD:2748]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 920/2026

 Rajender Kumar Bishnoi S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Bishnoi, Aged
 About 46 Years, R/o MLK-B, Jalwali, Gharsana, Sri Ganganagar
 (Raj.).

                                                                           ----Petitioner

                                           Versus
 1.        The      State      of     Rajasthan          through        The    Secretary,
           Department           of      Secondary           Education,        Secretariat,
           Rajasthan, Jaipur.
 2.        The Director And Officiating Additional State Project
           Director (Senior), Samgra Shiksha Abhiyan (SMSA),
           Rajasthan, Bikaner.
 3.        The District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Secondary
           Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
 4.        Shimla Devi, Member of Local Assembly (MLA), Assembly
           Area Anoopgarh, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
 5.        The Chief Block Education Officer, Gharsana, District Sri
           Ganganagar.

                                                                        ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                :     Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhaleria



                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

16/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order

dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure-P/8) whereby the deputation of the

petitioner stood cancelled.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was

sent on deputation vide order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure-P/3)

after being selected in the regular process undertaken for the said

(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 05:05:45 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2748] (2 of 5) [CW-920/2026]

purpose. Although, the order was initially for a period of one year,

but in terms of Rule 144A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951

(hereinafter referred to as 'the RSR') and the respective

Government of Rajasthan decision, the said period was extendable

for further four years. As the petitioner continued to work without

any formal order of extension since his appointment, it was a clear

case of deemed extension.

3. Counsel submits that the order impugned is even

discriminatory, as it was almost 135 people who were selected and

sent on deputation, however, it is only the deputation of the

present petitioner and one other incumbent which has been

cancelled and that too, for the sole reason that a question was

posed by the concerned MLA as to on whose order, the incumbents

were continued on deputation.

4. Counsel, while relying upon the Apex Court judgment in

Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India and Anr.;

2012 AIR SCW 4145, submits that the petitioner is entitled to

complete his entire period of deputation for five years and the

order impugned being discriminatory deserves to be quashed.

5. Heard the counsel. Perused Rule 144A of the RSR as well as

the order impugned.

6. It is not in dispute that the advertisement vide which the

application forms for deputation were invited, comprised of a

specific term that the deputation shall be for a period of one year,

although extendable for a further period of four years. Meaning

thereby, the appointment on deputation was essentially to be for a

period of one year subject to be extended further.

(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 05:05:45 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2748] (3 of 5) [CW-920/2026]

7. Rule 144A of the RSR provides as under:-

"Rule 144A. Conditions of deputation on foreign service: The terms and conditions of the State Government servants transferred on deputation/foreign service to Central Government, other State Government Public undertakings, autonomous bodies (whether incorporated or not) and other bodies wholly or substantially controlled by the Government etc. shall be regulated in accordance with the orders issued by the Government from time to time.]"

8. Vide Order No. 7.1(47)7D(Group2)/82 dated 09.11.1992,

the following provision was substituted in the Government of

Rajasthan decisions:-

"7. Duration of Deputation : The maximum period for which a Government servant may remain on deputation shall in no case exceed four year's, provided that in cases where it is, considered absolutely necessary in public interest and in special circumstances, to extend the period of deputation on foreign service beyond the maximum period of four years, the Administrative Department shall be competent to extent the period of deputation upto one year more i.e. upto 5 years, in all without any, prior reference to the Finance Department. But for the period exceeding fifth years, prior permission of Finance Department for extension in deputation period would be necessary and that:--

(a) No deputation allowance or deputation pay shall be payable for the extended period beyond four years;

(b) No proposal for extension in the period of deputation beyond five years shall be considered even without deputation

(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 05:05:45 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2748] (4 of 5) [CW-920/2026]

allowance/deputation pay, if the proposal for extension in the existing term of deputation is not moved at least two months before the expiry of the term of deputation giving full justification and

(c) If no request is received within the time limit prescribed; in (b) above the competent authority should issue the posting orders at least 30 days before the expiry of the period of deputation. The Government servant on deputation will seek permission 30 days before the expiry of period of deputation from the lending authority for reporting back to the parent department and shall act according to the directions received."

9. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it crystal clear

that although it provides for extension of deputation period for a

further period of four years but then the provision is not

mandatory in nature. Had the intention been to continue the

incumbents on deputation for a maximum period of four years, the

advertisement itself would have been issued for a period of four

years. The advertisement in question comprised of a specific

condition as under:-

10- ifj;kstuk dk;kZy;ksa esa inLFkkfir dkfeZdksa dk dk;Zdky

U;wure ,d o"kZ dk gksxk] ftls fu;ekuqlkj vf/kdre pkj o"kZ ds

fy, c<+k;k tk ldsxk ¼^^jktLFkku lsok fu;e 1951 ds fu;e&144

^^d**½A ysfdu izfrfu;qDr dkfeZd dk dk;Z larks"kizn ugha ik;s tkus

ij ;k iz'kklfud dkj.kksa ls vof/k iw.kZ gksus ls iwoZ gh jkT;