The central legal point established in the judgment is that deputation of an employee to another department requires the employee's consent, as emphasized by the legal precedents cited in the judgment.

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

1. With consent heard finally. Petitioner is working on the post of Sub-Divisional Forest Officer in the Forest Department of the State Government. He was transferred from Bhopal to Barwaha vide order dated 20.8.2008. While he was posted at Barwah, the State Government issued an order dated 22.8.2009 (Annexure P-4) by which he has been sent on deputation from Forest Department to Narmada Valley Development Authority (for brevity "NVDA"). Through the same order, the 4th Respondent has been transferred from Betual to Barwah in place of the Petitioner. Aggrieved, the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.8.2009 (Annexure P-5) and has filed this petition. On 24.8.2009, the operation of the impugned deputation order has been stayed by this Court.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that the impugned order of deputation sending him from Forest Department to the Narmada Valley Development Authority has been issued without obtaining his consent and as such it is liable to be quashed. He made a categorical statement that he had not given any consent for sending him on deputation.

3. The Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in their reply have stated that in the NVDA the employees are being posted from various departments of the State Government. Apart from various works NVDA has to perform the work of wild life management and afforestation, in the circumstances, the services of the Forest Department employees are also being taken in the NVDA. It is also the case of the Respondents that the State Government is empowered to send its employees on deputation to any other Government Departments, to the service of a body, incorporated or not which is wholly or substantially owned and controlled by the Government. Reliance has been placed by the Respondents on Rule 110 of the Fundamental Rules.

4. The 4th Respondent has also filed reply and has justified the impugned order of deputation. It has been stated that the Petitioner was not entitled to have been posted at Barwah as Sub-Divisional Officer Forest, therefore, he has rightly been sent out on deputation to NVDA which is permissible and no consent is required in view of Fundamental Rule 110.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the annexures and the affidavits filed by them.

In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to take note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India and by this Court from time to time in regard to the question involved in this petition. In the case of State of Punjab v. Inder Singh 1998 (78) FLR 272 the Supreme Court has observed thus:

Concept of "deputation " is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. "Deputation " has a different connotation in service law. The dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words, "deputation " means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation, the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the recruitment rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority which controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post.

6. In the case of Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar 1999 (82) FLR 797 it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the deputation means:

Assignment of an employee of one department/cadre/organisation to another department/cadre/organisation in public interest. Deputation involves voluntary decision of the lending authority, borrowing authority and the employee concerned.

7. In view of the