Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Indra Vikram Singh Chouhan and Ors - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Ors - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8209 and 7614 of 2019
Decided On : 14-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : J.S. Bhaleria and Manish Patel
For the Respondent: Utkarsh Singh for Sunil Beniwal, AAG
The maximum period for which a Government servant may remain on deputation is 5 years, as per the Government of Rajasthan's decision dated 01.02.1986.
Headnote:
DEPUTATION - TERMINATION - RULE 144A OF THE RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES, 1951 - Petitioners' deputation terminated by Project Director (LP&SHG) Rajivika relying on Rule 144A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 - Petitioners challenge the termination, arguing that it was passed by an incompetent authority and was malafide - Court holds that the termination was valid and dismisses the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, teachers on deputation with Rajivika, challenged the termination of their deputation by the Project Director (LP&SHG) Rajivika, relying on Rule 144A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. They argued that the termination was passed by an incompetent authority and was malafide.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the termination was valid and dismissed the petitions. It found that the petitioners had been on deputation with Rajivika for more than 5 years, which was the maximum period allowed under the Government of Rajasthan's decision dated 01.02.1986. It also found that the petitioners' parent department had not given its consent for their continued deputation after they were appointed as Accounts Assistants in 2015. The Court further held that the Project Director had the authority to terminate the petitioners' deputation, as the termination was not a termination of their employment but merely a repatriation to their parent department.
Issues: 1. Whether the termination of the petitioners' deputation was valid? 2. Whether the Project Director had the authority to terminate the petitioners' deputation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the termination of the petitioners' deputation was valid because: - They had been on deputation with Rajivika for more than 5 years, which was the maximum period allowed under the Government of Rajasthan's decision dated 01.02.1986. - Their parent department had not given its consent for their continued deputation after they were appointed as Accounts Assistants in 2015. 2. The Court held that the Project Director had the authority to terminate the petitioners' deputation because: - The termination was not a termination of their employment but merely a repatriation to their parent department.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions.
ORDER :
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 29.05.2019, whereby the Project Director (LP&SHG) Rajivika has, relying on provisions of Rule 144A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ('the Rules'), terminated the deputation of the petitioners and they have been repatriated to the parent department i.e. the Secondary Education Department.
2. It is, inter alia, submitted in the writ petitions that by order dated 03.07.2012 and 25.09.2013, the petitioners, who are Teachers Grade-III were appointed on deputation as PFT Manager/Coordinator, the order was passed by the State Mission Director, Rajivika Projects. Subsequent thereto, by order dated 16.04.2015 (Annex.-3), the petitioners were appointed as Accounts Assistant, DPMU again on deputation, which order was also issued by the State Mission Director. The petitioners continued to function in the said position when by order (Annex.-8) dated 29.05.2019, the Project Director noticing that the petitioners were appointed as PFT Manager/Coordinator on deputation on 03.07.2012 and 25.09.2013 respectively and were presently working with the District Project Management Unit, Jodhpur and Barmer and have spent 5 years 8 months and 6 years 10 months respectively with Rajivika and, therefore in terms of Rule 144A of the Rules, the deputation was put to an end and the petitioners were repatriated to the parent department.
3. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of the respondents in putting to an end petitioners' deputation is ex-facie illegal, inasmuch as, the order putting to an end petitioners' deputation has not been passed by the competent authority. It was submitted that while the petitioners were accorded appointment on deputation by the State Mission Director Rajivika, the order impugned has been passed by the Project Director and, therefore, on said count, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.
4. It was alleged that non-application of the mind is apparent as in the orders impugned it has been indicated that the petitioners are working as PFT Manager/Coordinator whereas they are working on different posts since 2015.
5. Submissions have been made that the action of the respondents is malafide, inasmuch as, the petitioner-Indra Vikram Singh was on leave when the order impugned was passed and further allegations have been made that on account of the fact that the petitioner was not toeing the line of the Project Director, the order impugned has been passed.
6. Submissions have also been made that reliance has been placed on Rule 144A only for targeting the petitioners while others, who have also completed more than 5 years are working in the Project, which fortifies the malafide.
7. Further submissions have been made that the deputation could have been put to an end only based on conditions indicated in the order and as the appointment was for the entire Project period and the Project is still continuing, the termination of petitioners' deputation is contrary to the law laid down in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India & Anr.: (2012) 7 SCC 757.
8. Qua the applicability of provisions of instructions under Rule 144A, it was submitted that the petitioners were freshly appointed in the year 2015 as Accounts Assistants and, therefore, they had not completed 5 years' period as envisaged under the instructions and on that count also, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioners, who are admittedly on deputation with Rajivika, have no vested right to continue on such deputation and, therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
10. Submissions have been made that the petitioners were seeking to distort the orders passed by the respondents. It was submitted that the order dated 29.05.2019 has only made ref
