A deputationist lacks an indefeasible right to remain in a position, and authorities can recall employees based on service exigencies without breaching natural justice principles if no prejudice is caused.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

1. Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 07.11.2025 issued by the District Education Officer-cum- DPC at Annexure-5, whereby he, along with four others, has been repatriated to the parent department.

2. For ease of understanding, the text of the impugned order is reproduced:

“OFFICE ORDER No.

5137 /Pdg./25/Date: 07/11/25

In pursuance of OSEPA Letter No. 12450, dated 30.00.2022 & Letter No.6040, dated 21.05.2022, and as per the approval of the Collector-cum-Chairman, Samagra Shiksha, Mayurbhanj, the following Level-IV Headmasters who are continuing as Cluster Resource Centre Coordinators (CRCCs) are hereby reverted back to their parent post of Headmaster, Level-IV with immediate effect.

The reverted Headmasters are directed to hand over the charge of CRCC to the concerned Block Education Officer immediately and report at their parent school/post without delay.

The concerned Block Education Officers are instructed to ensure proper handing over and taking over of details charges and submit report along with the date of joining & relieve of the above CRCCs to the undersigned within 07 (seven) days from the date of issue of this order.

By order of the Collector-cum-Chairman

Samagra Siksha, Mayurbhanj”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the deputation having happened after due selection process and its tenure being five years, the impugned order of the kind could not have been made cutting short the specified period. He also tells the Court that impugned order is liable to be voided, since it has been made without giving an opportunity of hearing and thus there being breach of principles of natural justice. Learned AGA-Mr. Behura appearing for the OPs resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. He submits that unless the rule creates a right to remain on deputation, a deputationist cannot cling on to a foreign department/post. He also submits that the OPs, being the competent authorities, have the prerogative to deploy their staff depending upon the exigencies of service and that Writ Court cannot intervene in matters like this.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned AGA.

4.1. Before delving into the matter, let me give a thumbnail idea of deputation. Samaraditya Pal in his treatise ‘LAW RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVICE’ Third Edition at paragraph 145.1 describes as under:

“The concept of deputation in the law relating to public service is in essence derived from the significance of the word 'deputy' and the appropriate meaning of 'deputy' in this context would be 'substitute'. From this pivotal sense of substitution, many of the incidents of deputation discussed here will follow logically. Although it is usually said that a person has been appointed on deputation, the better expression would be 'assignment on deputation'. It would, therefore, be more proximate to accuracy to describe deputation as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority)… … … ”

4.2. Firstly, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been on deputation and that it is the lender dep