SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(MP) 311

2007(3) JLJ 395
P.K. Jaiswal, J.
Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition(S) No.5921 of 2006 (Gwalior); Decided on 20.3.2007.

Advocates:
M.P.S. Raghuwanshi for petitioner;
Praveen Newaskar, Deputy Government Advocate for State.

Headnote:(1) Public Servant -- absorption -- application rejected -- employee repatriated with consent of parent as well as borrowing department -- also relieved the same day -- no question of absorption arises.

       Held : He was taken on deputation in the department of respondent No.3, that is to say, Sports and Youth Welfare Department. Earlier, he applied for his absorption in the Sports and Youth Welfare Department. The respondent No.3 vide order dated 11.9.1997 rejected his absorption and he was repatriated to his parent department. The petitioner never challenged the order dated 11.9.1997 (Annexure R-l). He has no legal right to get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation.

       With the consent of parent department dated 17.9.1997 and borrowing department dated 6.12.1997, the services of the petitioner is repatriated by the impugned order dated 6.5.2006 (Annexure P-1) and he was relieved by the respondent No.4 on the same day, i.e. 6:5.2006 vide letter No.B/3643 dated 6.5.2006. [Paras 9 & 11

       (2) Public Servant -- deputation -- employee has no vested right to continue on deputation -- he can be sent back to his parent department where he held a lien. [Para 9

       (3) Words and Phrases -- deputation -- means service outside cadre or outside parent department. [Para 9

       (4) Sports and Youth Welfare Class III (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1998 (M.P.) -- R.6.1(Gha) -- case for absorption considered and rejected -- no absorption thereafter can be claimed as of right -- provision does not help the employee. [Para 12

       (5) Public Servant -- deputation for specific term -- cannot be curtailed except on ground of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. (2005)8 SCC 394 followed. [Para 13

       (6) Public Servant -- absorption -- employee working on deputation -- although has no right to be absorbed -- position may be contrary in cases which are governed by statutory rules. (1999)8 SCC 381 and (2000)5 SCC 362 followed. [Paras 15 & 16

       (7) Public Servant -- on deputation -- parent department always has a right to recall him before he is absorbed. (2000)5 SCC 362 followed.

       ¼1½ yksd lsod && vkesyu && vkosnu [kkfjt && deZpkjh] ewy foHkkx vkSj m/kkj ysus okys foHkkx dh Hkh lgefr ls laizR;kofrZr && mlh fnu HkkjeqDr && vkesyu dk iz‘u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrkA

        vfHkfu/kkZfjr % og izR;FkhZ Ø-3 ds foHkkx esa vFkkZr~ [ksy vkSj ;qok dY;k.k foHkkx esa izfrfu;qfDr ij fy;k x;k FkkA iwoZ esa mlus [ksy vkSj ;qok dY;k.k foHkx esa vkesyu ds fy, vkosnu fd;k FkkA izR;FkhZ Ø-3 us vkns‘k fnukad 11-1-1997 }kjk mldk vkesyu ukeatwj dj fn;k vkSj og mlds ewy foHkkx dks laizR;kofrZr dj fn;k x;k FkkA ;kph us vkns‘k fnukad 11-9-1997 ¼mikca/k vkj&1½ ij dHkh vk{ksi ugha fd;kA mls ml foHkkx es vkesfyr fd, tkus dk dksbZ fof/k vf/kdkj ugha Fkk ftlesa og izfrfu;qfDr ij x;k FkkA

        ewy foHkkx dh fnukad 17-9-1997 dh vksj m/kkj ysus okys foHkkx dh fnukad 6-12-1997 dh lgefr ls ;kph dh lsok vk{ksfir vkns‘k fnukad 6-5-2006 ¼mikca/k ih&1½ }kjk laizR;kofrZr dj nh xbZ Fkh vkSj mlh fnu vFkkZr~ 6-5-2006 dks mls i= Ø- ch@3643 fnukad 6-5-2006 }kjk izR;FkhZ Ø-4 }kjk HkkjeqDr dj fn;k x;k FkkA

        ¿ iSjk 9 ,oa 11À

       ¼2½ yksd lsod && izfrfu;qfDr && deZpkjh dks izfrfu;qfDr ij cus jgus dk dksbZ fufgr vf/kdkj ugha gS && mls mlds ewy foHkkx dks okil Hkstk tk ldrk gS tgk¡ mldk /kkj.kkf/kdkj FkkA ¿ iSjk 9À

       ¼3½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && Þizfrfu;qfDrß && vFkZ gS] laoxZ ds ckgj vFkok ewy foHkkx ls ckgj lsokA

        ¿ iSjk 9À

       ¼4½ [ksy vkSj ;qok dY;k.k oxZ 3 ¼vjktif=r½ lsok HkrhZ fu;e] 1998 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 6-1¼?k½ && vkesyu ds fy, ekeys ij fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj ukeatwj fd;k x;k && rnqiajkr vf/kdkj dh Hkk¡fr vkesyu dk nkok ugha fd;k tk ldrk && ;g mica/k deZpkjh dks lgk;d ugha gks ldrkA ¿ iSjk 12À

       ¼5½ yksd lsod && fofufnZ"V vof/k ds fy, izfrfu;qfDr && vuqi;qDrrk vFkok vlarks"ktud dk;Z ds vk/kj ds vfrfjDr de ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼2005½8 ,l lh lh 394 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 13À

       ¼6½ yksd lsod && vkesyu && deZpkjh izfrfu;qfDr ij && ;|fi vkesfyr fd, tkus dk mls vf/kdkj ugha gS && fLFkfr mu ekeyksa esa foijhr gks ldrh gS tks dkuwuh fu;eksa ls ‘kkflr gSaA ¼1999½8 ,l lh lh 381 rFkk ¼2000½5 ,l lh lh 362 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 15 ,oa 16 À

       ¼7½ yksd lsod && izfrfu;qfDr ij && og vkesfyr dj fy;k tkrk gS] blds iwoZ ewy foHkkx dks mls okil cqykus dk lnSo vf/kdkj gSA ¼2005½5 ,l lh lh 362 vuqlfjrA 2005¼1½ ts ,y ts 7 voyafcrA

       ¿ iSjk 9À

ORDER

1. The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 6.5.2006 passed by respondent No.3 Directors Sports and Youth Welfare Department, Bhopal, whereby he has been repatriated to his parent department. This order of repatriation is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is contrary to the policy decision of the State Government and when the matter for absorption of the petitioner in the Sports and Youth Welfare Department was under active consideration, the respondents passed the impugned order repatriating the petitioner to his parent department.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was originally appointed and posted as Constable in the Railway Police and his parent department is the respondent No.3 Home Department. In the year 1988, he was deputed in the Economic Offence Wing, Bhopal, vide Annexure P-4. Thereafter, he submitted an application for his deputation-in the Sports and Youth Welfare Department and consequently, he was deputed in the said department of respondent No.3 vide order dated 31.10.1992 (Annexure P-5). Annexure P-6 is policy on deputation issued by the State Government. Annexure P-7 is M.P. Sports and Youth Welfare Department Class III (Non-Gazetted Post) Service Recruitment Rules, 1998. The petitioner was working on deputation in the Department of Sports and Youth Welfare on the post of District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer. This post is under supervision of respondent No.4 Superintendent of Police, Morena.

3. At the instance of petitioner, the respondent No.3 initiated proceedings for his absorption on the post of District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer and issued letter dated 6.4.1999 (Annexure P-8). Respondent No.2 i.e. parent department of the petitioner issued no objection on 4.5.1999 vide Annexure P-9. On 31.7.1999, the respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to submit original documents regarding his qualifications, etc. On 10.8.1999, respondent No.4 directed the petitioner for submitting the documents before respondent No.3. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-12, District Authorities recommended the name of the petitioner for absorption on the post of District Sport and Youth Welfare Officer in the Department of respondent No.3.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when his case for absorption in the department of respondent No.3 was in active consideration, the respondent No.3 vide order dated 16.10.2006 (Annexure P-16) absorbed one Shri Vikas Kharadkar, who was on deputation and working as District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 vide letter dated 28.4.2006, recommended the name of one Shri Brijesh Singh Tomar for his deputation on the post of District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer, Morena. Thereafter, vide letter dated 3.5.2006, SP Morena recommended the name of Pranay Kumar Sharma for deputation on the post of District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer, Morena. Due to the recommendation made by respondent No.4 SP Morena for deputation of Pranay Kumar Sharma and Brijesh Singh Tomar on the post of District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer, Morena, the respondent No.3 repatriated the services of the petitioner to his parent department vide order dated 6.5.2006. It is this action, which is impugned in this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been repatriated just to accommodate Brijesh Singh Tomar and Pranay Kumar Sharma. It is also submitted that the petitioner is working from last 14 years on deputation on the post of District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer at Morena and his name was recommended for absorption in the department of respondent No.3, therefore, respondent No.3 acted illegally in repatriating him to his parent department. The post is still lying vacant and no regular appointment is made on the post of District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer, therefore, his services


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top