Deputationists do not have an indefeasible right to remain in the borrowing department permanently; repatriation to the parent department is justified after five years of service on deputation.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. These are the bunch of writ petitions, wherein Sri Sharad Pathak and Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey have argued on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of the State-opposite parties and Sri Sanjay Basin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sarvesh Dubey and Shobhit Mohan Shukla for opposite party No.2.

2. In the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions the grievance of all the petitioners is one and the same, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties all the writ petitions have been connected and are being decided by a common judgment. However, the leading writ petition would be Writ-A No.6157 of 2024 ( Shashank Sachan vs. State of U.P. and others ), so the facts of the case have been taken from the aforesaid leading writ petition.

3. The petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions have challenged the impugned repatriation order whereby they have been repatriated to their parent department and they have also challenged the consequential relieving orders. Notably, on the first date of admission, the interim order has been granted by this Court.

4. The question involved in this bunch of writ petitions is that as to whether the deputationists have got any indefeasible right to be retained in their borrowing department when they are fully aware that their appointment to the borrowing department has been done on deputation basis; they are being paid their salary etc. from their parent department and they are maintaining their lien in their parent department. Another question in the bunch of writ petitions is that as to whether the deputationists can be retained in their parent department permanently.

5. The brief facts and circumstances of the present case is that the petitioners have been appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers in the Basic Education Department since 2007 onwards, as the case may be. After their appointment, the petitioners have started discharging their respective duties on the post of Assistant Teacher at various schools governed and controlled by the Basic Education Department. On 21.12.2019, an advertisement was published on official website for making selection and appointment of District Coordinators. Thereafter, a letter was issued by the State Project Director, Lucknow, U.P. on 30.12.2019 to all the District Basic Educaiton Officers with respect to appointment of District Coordinators by way of selection amongst the Assistant Teachers working in the school run by U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad.

6. On 23.01.2020, the State Project Director wrote a letter to all the District Basic Education Officers of the State of U.P. prescribing the eligibility criteria for Online examination for the post of District Coordinator fixing the date of examination for 27.01.2020 granting duty leave for 27.01.2020 to the Assistant Teachers who would be participating in such examination. In the aforesaid letter, it has been categorically indicated that these appointments would be made on deputation basis. Therefore, it is clear that before the date of examination all the participants have been made aware that if they are selected and appointed as District Coordinators their appointment would be on deputation basis.

7. It has been informed by learned co