Repatriation of a State Government employee from deputation to another department before the specified period of deputation without just grounds is illegal.

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed in the Higher Education Department of the State Government. While he was posted as Assistant Professor (Economics) at Govt. Arts and Commerce College, Indore he was sent on deputation from Higher Education Department (for short 'H.E.D.') to the Urban Administrative and Development Department (for short 'U.A.D.D.') of the State Government vide dated 11-8-2000 (Annexure P/2).

2. On 1-7-2006 an order Annexure P/3 was issued on behalf of the State Government by the Additional Secretary of the School Education Department (for short 'S.E.D.') in the name of and by the order of Governor by which the petitioner's services were withdrawn from U.A.D.D. and he was sent on deputation for a period of three years to the S.E.D. and posted as Joint Director Education, Indore.

3. However, before completion of the said period of deputation of three years fixed vide order dated 1-7-2006 (Annexure P/3) the Additional Secretary of S.E.D. cancelled the aforesaid order of deputation, Annexure P/3 and issued the order dated 9-7-2007 (Annexure P/l) of repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department H.E.D. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation on 10-7-2007 (Annexure P/5) and has filed this petition.

4. According to the petitioner vide order dated 1-7-2006 (Annexure P/3) his sendees on deputation were withdrawn from U.A.D.D. and he was sent on deputation to the S.E.D. for a period of three years, in the circumstances, before completion of three years specified period of deputation, his services could not have been repatriated by the impugned order dated 9-7-2007 (Annexure P/l). In support reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ramakrishnan, 2005(8) SCC 394.

5. Respondents filed reply and have stated that H.E.D. vide letter dated 6-12-2005 (Annexure R/l) requested the U.A.D.D. to repatriate the services of the petitioner in view of the shortage of the Professors and Assistant Professors in the H.E.D. According to the respondents, the S.E.D. has wrongly issued the order dated 1-7-2006 (Annexure P/3) taking back the services of petitioner from U.A.D.D. and has wrongly posted the petitioner on deputation for 3 years in S.E.D. It is stated that it was the duty of the petitioner to have informed the S.E.D. that his parent Department is H.E.D. and therefore he be posted in the H.E.D. It is, further stated that when H.E.D. pointed out the mistake to the S.E.D. the S.E.D. has rightly issued the impugned order dated 9-7-2007 (Annexure P/l) repatriating the petitioner's services to his Parent Department.

6. True it is that a person on deputation can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve on his substantiative position at the instance of parent department or the borrowing department. However, in the present case the petitioner was sent on deputation initially to the U.A.D.D. Thereafter he was sent on deputation to the S.E.D. for a specified period of three years vide order dated 1-7-2006, in the circumstances the general principle that he being deputationist could have been repatriated at any time will not apply. Further it is not the case of the respondents that the period of deputation has been curtailed on account of petitioner's unsuitability or his unsatisfactory performance in the S.E.D. or for any other just ground. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ramakrishnan (supra) has held that when the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily, the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. A Division Bench of this Court in C. R. Gaur vs. State of M.P. and other, 2008(3) MPHT 24 while considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ramkrishan and others (supra) has observed that the exam