1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 19-7-2012 (Annexure P/2) whereby the State Government has transferred him from BRCC ¼fodkl[k.M L=ksr leUo;d½ District Korea to Panchayat and Rural Development Department, on his repatriation to the Panchayat Department.

2. The petitioner is a Shiksha Karmi Grade II. Vide order dated 15-3-2012 (Annexure – P/1) passed by the District Project Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Korea (for short 'RGSM') the petitioner was directed to work as BRCC at Khadgawa.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by order dated 15-3-2012 the petitioner was sent on deputation, therefore, the petitioner cannot be repatriated without obtaining his consent.

4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the order Annexure – P/1 was passed by the District Project Coordinator, RGSM, Korea, without mentioning that the petitioner is sent on deputation, therefore, even if it is mentioned in the impugned order that the services are repatriated, it would not make any difference. He would further submit that even otherwise for conclusion of deputation and consequent repatriation consent of the concerned employee is not necessary.

5. On reading of the order dated 15-3-2012, it would manifest that the petitioner's post is mentioned therein as Teacher (Panchayat) meaning thereby that he is the employee of the Panchayat Department, however, the order Annexure – P/1 was passed by the District Projector Coordinator, RGSM, Korea. It does not appear that at the time of passing of order Annexure – P/1 consent of the Panchayat Department was obtained. In the impugned order Annexure – P/2, passed by the Department of School Education, opening part of the order reads that the following BRCC/Lecturer/Head Master/PTI are transferred on administrative exigency meaning thereby that the same is an order of transfer, however, since the petitioner is substantively appointed as Teacher (Panchayat) in the Department of Panchayat his services were repatriated to the Panchayat Department.

6. In Kavi Raj and Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, (2013) 3 SCC 526, the Supreme Court held thus:

“22. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties we are of the view that the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents as have been summarized above are unexceptionable. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept that the appointment of the appellants was substantively made to a cadre under the Directorate of Medical Education. We are also of the view that the appointment of the appellants in the Directorate of Medical Education was clearly by way of deputation. Their posting at the Government Medical College, Jammu (and/or at the hospitals associated therewith) was most certainly beyond their parent cadre, and therefore, by way of deputation. The reasons for our aforesaid conclusions, are being recorded in the following paragraphs.

24. Before concluding, it is essential to deal with certain inferences drawn by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. According to the learned Single Judge, prior consent of an employee is imperative, binding, peremptory and mandatory, before he is posted on deputation outside his parent department. No statutory rule has been brought to our notice, requiring prior consent of an employee, before his deployment against a post beyond his parent cadre. The mere fact that the appellants' consent was not sought before their posting at the Government Medical College, Jammu (and/or at the hospitals associated therewith) would not, in our view have any determinative effect on the present controversy. Broadly, an employee can only be posted (or transferred) to a post against which he is selected. This would ensure his stationing, within the cadre of posts, under his principal employer. His posting may, however, be r