2025:JHHC:36703 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.6814 of 2025 -----

Phodo Soren, S/o Somay Soren, R/o Village- Fatehpur Chapal, P.O. Balapokhar, P.S. Sahibganj, District- Sahibganj, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s).

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, 3^rd Floor, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House, P.O.&P.S.

Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

2.The Director, Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, 3^rd Floor, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

3.The Vice Chancellor, Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dighi Campus, Dumka-

Pakur Road, P.O. Dumka, District- Dumka

4.The Registrar, Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dighi Campus, Dumka- Pakur Road, P.O. Dumka, District- Dumka

5.The Principal, Sahibganj College, P.O. Sahibganj, P.S. Sahibganj, District-

Sahibganj, Jharkhand … Respondent(s)

------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jorong Jedan Sanga, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, AC to SC (L&C)-II For the Resp Nos.3-5 : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate …......

05 / 08.12.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. Issue is limited in this case. On 03.12.2025, this Court directed the respondents to inform this Court as to whether before sending the petitioner on deputation consent of this petitioner was taken or not.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up though the counter affidavit has not been filed, but the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University, upon instructions from the Registrar, Sido Kanhu Murmu University, admits that no consent was taken from the petitioner before deputing the petitioner from Sahibganj College, Sahibganj to Madhupur College, Madhupur.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner was sent on deputation by the impugned order. This is not a case of transfer rather, it is a case of deputation. The petitioner was deputed to Madhupur College, Madhupur. His employer is Sido Kanhu Murmu University. From the impugned order, it is clear that posting of the petitioner is on deputation.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others versus R. Thiyagarajan, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 201 in paragraphs 13 and 14 explained the concept of deputation and transfer. The same is quoted hereinbelow:-

13. What is deputation has been very succinctly explained in the judgment of this Court in Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar [Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (1999) 4 SCC 659 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 902]

wherein this Court held as follows : (SCC pp. 662-63, para 8)

“8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. In the case at hand all the three conditions were fulfilled.”

14. In Prasar Bharati v. Amarjeet Singh [Prasar Bharati v. Amarjeet Singh (2007) 9 SCC 539 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 566] this Court held thus : (SCC pp.

545-46, paras 13, 17 & 20)

“13. There exists a distinction between “transfer” and “deputation”. “Deputation” connotes service outside the cadre or outside the parent department in which an employee is serving. “Transfer”, however, is limited to equivalent post in the same cadre and in the same department. Whereas deputation would be a temporary phenomenon, transfer being antithesis must exhibit the opposite indications.

***

17. It has not been disputed that the functions of the Central Go