Honble PANWAR, J.–By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the orders impugned Annex.4 dated 3.9.2005, Annex.5 dated 13.9.2005 and Annex.7 dated 3.10.2005.

(2). I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.III vide order Annex.1 dated 24.3.1989, however, the petitioner was appointed as Senior Teacher (Mathematics) vide order Annex.2 dated 17.6.1992 and as such the petitioner is an employee of the respondent Education Department and his services are governed by the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short the Rules of 1971 hereinafter). During his service tenure, the petitioner was transferred to various places i.e. Government Secondary School Barwada, Udaipur (Rural) and Government Senior Secondary School Ambamata, Udaipur (Urban). The respondent No.4 by an advertisement Annex.3 dated 19.4.2005 published in Rajasthan Patrika, Udaipur Edition on 20.4.2005, advertised for appointment of Senior Teachers working in the Education Department in Residential School/ Ashram Chhatravas run by respondent No.4 namely Janjati Upyojna in Udaipur. A note was appended below the advertisement Annex.3 that the requisite qualification holders and those employees who are willing, may apply on a plain paper for the said purpose to the Project Officer, Tribal Area Development Department, Udaipur by 29.4.2005 at 10.30 A.M. The petitioner did not apply in pursuance of the said advertisement Annex.3. However, by order Annex.4 dated 3.9.2005, the respondent No.2 accorded sanction to post the petitioner from Government Senior Secondary School, Ambamata, Udaipur to Residential School, Kotda and in compliance of the order Annex.4, the petitioner was relieved from Govt. Senior Secondary School, Ambamata, Udaipur vide order Annex.5 dated 13.9.2005 to join at Residential School, Kotda under the scheme run by Tribal Area Development Department, Udaipur. This order came to be challenged by the petitioner before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short the appellate tribunal hereinafter) by way of an appeal being Appeal No.1008/05. By order Annex.7 dated 3.10.2005, the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the appellate tribunal. Hence this writ petition.

(4). The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition stating therein that Rajasthan Janjatiya Kshetriya Vikas Vibhag is competent to send the employee on deputation in the residential or Aashram School. It has also been averred that the respondent No.3 has issued direction for relieving the petitioner and deputation of the petitioner at Residential School, Kotda has been made in the interest of administrative exigency. In whole of the reply, the respondents have not come with a case that before sending the petitioner on deputation to Residential School/ Aashram School run by Trible Area Development, Udaipur, the petitioner ever consented. Whereas, the petitioner specifically came with a case in para 5 and 6 of the writ petition that in pursuance of the advertisement Annex.3 he neither applied nor consented for deputation and therefore, the order sending the petitioner on deputation impugned is erroneous.

(5). Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two decisions of Honble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Inder Singh and Others (1997) 8 SCC 372 and Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and Another (1999) 4 SCC 659.

(6). In State of Punjab and Others Vs. Inder Singh and Others (supra) while considering the concept of "deputation", the Apex Court held as under :-

"18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words "deputation"

Click Here to Read the rest of this document