Deputation ends automatically by efflux of time upon completion of the maximum prescribed period, resulting in a deemed reversion to the parent department, rendering a formal revocation of the deputation order unnecessary for subsequent transfer.

Order

1) The writ petition was filed challenging the transfer order dated 10.01.2026 passed by the second respondent.

2) The ground of challenge is that the petitioner was deputed to the post of Resource Person in the Office of the Chief Block Education Officer, Ramsar, District Barmer, vide order dated 05.08.2021, and he joined the office on 13.08.2021. The conditions of deputation clearly stipulate that he shall remain on deputation for a minimum period of one year, which may be further extended, subject to a maximum period of four years. Before the petitioner could be relieved from the post of Resource Person, the impugned transfer order was passed, which is unsustainable.

3) The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that without revoking the deputation order and without relieving the petitioner from the deputation post, the petitioner could not have been transferred. It is further submitted that as per Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Rules of 1951”), a person occupying a deputation post is required to be reverted to the original department, and until a fresh posting is given, he is required to be kept under APO. Such procedure is not followed in this case.

4) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that revocation of a deputation order is required only when the deputation is in force. In the present case, the deputation of the petitioner came to an end on 05.08.2025, whereas the transfer order was issued on 10.01.2026. Upon completion of the maximum period of four years, the petitioner is deemed to have been reverted to the original department and deemed to have been relieved, and thereafter continued to be in the parent department. It is further submitted that revocation is required only when the deputation is in force. On the date of transfer, no valid deputation existed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, a prayer is made for dismissal of the writ petition.

5) I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the material available on record.

6) The facts and contentions clearly establish that the petitioner was deputed to the office of the Chief Block Education Officer as a Resource Person. The deputation order was issued on 05.08.2021, and the petitioner joined the deputation post on 13.08.2021. The conditions of selection clearly provide that the minimum period of deputation is one year and the maximum period is four years. However, the deputation department may revoke such an appointment if the services of the deputationist are found to be unsatisfactory. Revocation of deputation is required only when there is a valid subsisting deputation. In the present case, the deputation of the petitioner came to an end by efflux of time on 13.08.2025, being the date on which the maximum deputation period of four years was completed. It appears that despite completion of the deputation period, the petitioner continued to work on the same post, ignoring the expiry of the deputation tenure. Such a course of action is contrary to the selection process and the conditions of deputation. Upon completion of the deputation period, there is a deemed reversion to the parent department. The impugned transfer order was passed when such deemed reversion had already taken effect.

7) Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951 applies whenever an employee is placed on Awaiting Posting Order, and it has nothing to do with the transfer order.

8) Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned couns