The discretion to curtail the period of deputation lies with the State Government, and the cancellation of deputation to facilitate enquiry proceedings does not amount to stigma.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Umesh Kumar srivastava, learned counsel for the State Sri A. K. Verma and Sri P. K. Srivastava, who has moved the application for impleadment of Janardan Lal, who has filed writ petition no. 1062 (SB) of 2005, challenging the very initial order of appointment by deputation of the petitioner on the post of Director in the Department of Prison Administration and Correctional Services.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Chandra Prakash Srivastava who was substantially appointed and working in the parent department, namely, Department of industries, Govt. of U. P. as Assistant Director, Industries, feels aggrieved by an order dated 12. 1. 06, by means of which his deputation to the Department of Prison Administration and Correctional Services on the post of Director, jail Industries has been cancelled.

( 3 ) ASSAILING the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri umesh Kumar Srivastava has submitted that the order has been passed in violation of the terms of appointment by means of which he was sent on deputation contained in Annexure-2 dated 14. 6. 05, besides being stigmatic in character. He further submits that since the petitioner was sent on deputation on 14. 6. 05, it will be within the knowledge of the State Government that against the petitioner some charges were pending and, therefore, after the issuance of the charge sheet and initiation of disciplinary proceedings, merely on the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the order of deputation could not be cancelled.

( 4 ) SRI A. K. Verma has submitted that the impugned order is neither stigmatic nor it caused any prejudice to the petitioner, so far his service career is concerned. He has argued that the Government in its discretion thought that it was not appropriate to transfer the petitioner on deputation and keep the petitioner away from the parent department during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, the order in question has been passed.

( 5 ) RELYING on the contents mentioned in the appointment order/deputation order dated 14. 6. 05, he has submitted that the petitioner, who was sent on deputation, cannot claim any legal or enforceable right to remain on deputation as it is within the discretion of the State Government to repatriate the petitioner to its parent department.

( 6 ) SRI P. K. Srivastava appearing for Janardan Lal, the petitioner in writ petition no. 2062 (SB) of 2005, a contesting candidate for the aforesaid post on deputation, submitted that the very first appointment/deputation of the petitioner was illegal and in violation of the Rules known as the Uttar pradesh Jail (Group `a and `b) Service) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2002, wherein the basic criteria is that an officer who is to be sent on deputation should be a class-I officer, namely, falling in Group `a but because of the political influence, the sole name of the petitioner was forwarded to the department of Prison and despite the name of Janardan Lal being also recommended, it was not forwarded, though he is a Class-I Officer and fully eligible for the office.

( 7 ) SRI Umesh Kumar Srivastava has submitted that so far the case of janardan Lal is concerned, he was not recommended for appointment on deputation and that since no Class-I Officer was available for being sent on deputation, the petitioners name was forwarded, though he admits that he was a Class-II Officer.

( 8 ) THE aforesaid Rules of 2002, which came into force on 10. 9. 02 in sub-rule (5) of Rule 5, prescribe that an officer belonging to Group `a can be sent to the Director, Jail Industries from the Industries Department.

( 9 ) WE have considered the arguments raised by the parties counsel and gone through the record of both the writ petitions, which have been connected together.

( 10 ) THE impugned order dated 21. 1. 06 has to be read in the light of the reasons given therein. The order only says that the petitioner was formally sen