O R D E R

Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief:-

“i). That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned office order dated 25.4.2022 (Annexure P-2), since the same has been issued in violation of the transfer policy and petitioner has completed only 10 months at the present place of posting and he has been transferred on secondment basis and sent from his parent department to another department without getting any consent from the petitioner and NOC from his department. Furthermore, the impugned order is on the request of the private respondent.

ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work at his present place of posting i.e. Government Girls Senior Secondary School Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., till he completes his normal tenure, since the petitioner has yet completed only 10 months in the said school.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was appointed as TGT (Arts) vide order dated 29th June, 2001. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Economics) vide order dated 8th July, 2009. Vide order dated 7th June, 2021, petitioner was transferred to Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Mandi. However, respondent No.2, vide impugned office order dated 25th April, 2022 (Annexure P-2), has transferred the petitioner, on secondment basis, from Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Mandi to District Institute of Education & Training (DIET), Mandi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not have been transferred on secondment basis without his consent. Petitioner has never given his consent for his transfer to DIET, Mandi, on secondment basis.

4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in CWP No.1098 of 2015, titled Desh Raj versus Chaudhary Shrawan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and connected matters, wherein it was held as under:-

“Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases

372, have held that deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis and there should be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and would therefore know his right and privileges in the deputation post. Their Lordships have held as under:

[19] Concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. 'Deputation' has a different connotation in-service law and 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 Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who 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. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back post. to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be.

xxx xxx xxx In view of the aforesaid exposition of law. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Bishan Dass case (supra) would