JUDGMENT :

RAJIV JOSHI, J.

1. Heard Ms. Chhaya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-1, 3 & 4 and Sri Durga Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-2.

2. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the respondent no.2-State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, State Project Office, Vidya Bhawan, Nishatganj, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner was repatriated to his parental department i.e. Secondary Education, U.P. with immediate effect.

3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:

4. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Government Inter College, Ballia after due selection and subsequently, on the basis of advertisement issued by respondent-2, he was appointed on the post of District Co-ordinator (Community Mobilization) vide order dated 02.11.2018 on deputation in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia. In the appointment letter, it is mentioned that the said appointment was on deputation for a minimum period of three years and maximum five years.

5. Subsequently, pursuant to the said appointment on deputation, the petitioner joined as a District Co-ordinator (Community Mobilization) at Ballia on 20.11.2019 in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia. Subsequently, on the basis of complaint lodged by one Sri Rajesh Kumar (unionist and B.J.P. worker, Sohaon Ballia) as well as on the basis of recommendation dated 17.11.2021 and 18.11.2021 of respondent no.4-Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, the impugned order dated 27.11.2021 has been passed, whereby the petitioner repatriated to his parental department i.e. Secondary Education, U.P., which is impugned in the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of some complaint lodged by the political worker as well as on the basis of recommendation made by the respondent-4, which is not only punitive in nature but stigmatic and even the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without serving any copy of the complaint lodged by the political worker against the petitioner and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

7. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court passed in Union of India Through Govt. of Pondicherry and Another Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and Others, (2005) 0 Supreme (SC) 1350.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no inquiry with regard to allegation made in the complaint lodged by the political worker has been conducted.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-2 submits that the petitioner does not hold any lien on the post of District Co-ordinator (Community Mobilization), who was working on deputation on the said post and has rightly been repatriated to his original department on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Government Inter College, Ballia. He further submits that due to confrontation between teachers association and the petitioner, for smooth functioning of the department work, the impugned order has been passed. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.

10. I have considered the rival submission so raised by counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. Record reflects that the petitioner was appointed as District Co-ordinator (Community Mobilization) in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia and joined the said post on deputation on 20.11.2019. The impugned order has been passed by respondent-2 repatriating him to parent department i.e. on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Government Inter College, Ballia.

12. Ordinarily a deputationist has no right to continue on the said post but the impugned action of the respondents by