Premature repatriation of a deputationist must comply with natural justice principles and procedural norms, and authority must be competent as per relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"In view of the submissions made above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction to:

a) Call for the records of the case and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.01.2021 at (Annexure P-1).

b) Direct the respondent to continue the petitioner on deputation till the expiry of this remaining tenure as extended by the Competent Authority with all consequential benefits; and

c) Any order or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the peculiar circumstances of the case in the interest of justice may also please be awarded.

2. The facts as noted from the writ petition and so highlighted by Mr. V.K. Garg, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are that the petitioner is a Judicial Officer of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (District & Sessions Judge). On April 3, 2018, the respondent, National Human Rights Commission (`NHRC', for short), issued an advertisement inviting the applications for appointment to the post of Presenting Officer (`PO', for short) in the respondent/NHRC by deputation failing which by re-employment/contract.

3. On August 2, 2019, the petitioner being found eligible for deputation was shortlisted for the interview. On October 7, 2019, the petitioner was appointed to the post of PO on deputation initially for a period of one year. His appointment was to be governed by the terms of DoP&T OM dated June 17, 2010. The petitioner joined the post on October 01, 2019. The period of one year had expired on September 30, 2020. On September 25, 2020, the petitioner gave his willingness for extension of his tenure for one more year. According to Mr. Garg, on October 29, 2020 even the parent department (Rajasthan High Court) of the petitioner gave its concurrence for extension of deputation term of the petitioner for a further period of one year w.e.f October 1, 2020 till September 30, 2021 to the respondent/NHRC. Accordingly, on November 18, 2020, the tenure of deputation of the petitioner was extended for a further period of one year pursuant to the approval of the competent authority and the same was conveyed to his parent department.

4. It is the submission of Mr. Garg that on January 5, 2021, the petitioner was prematurely repatriated under the order of an Officer, bearing F. No. A-19011/10/2020-Estt. (`Impugned Order', for short), not competent in the absence of the Chairperson, by directing the petitioner to report to his parent department. He submitted that immediately thereafter, the petitioner had made representations to the respondent as well as to his parent department with a request that the impugned order be withdrawn by the respondent/NHRC.

5. Mr. Garg has made three-fold submissions. Firstly, the impugned order dated January 5, 2021, whereby the petitioner is prematurely repatriated to his parent department is in violation of Para 9 of the DoP&T OM dated June 17, 2010 without following the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no advance notice of three months was given to the petitioner and his parent department, i.e., Rajasthan High Court. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to Annexure P6 at Page 54 wherein Para 9 reads as under:

"9. Premature reversion of deputationist to parent cadre