Note:- Bench Reader will attach this at the top of the first v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Note:- Bench Reader will attach this at the top of the first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 459 of 2010 (S/S) Dr. Hem Chandra Joshi S/o Shri Puran Chandra Joshi Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Petitioner … Respondents Dated:- 28th June, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paresh Tripathi, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in the year 1999. In the year 2006, the petitioner was posted as a District Coordinator on deputation in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which was upto 31st March, 2010. The period was subsequently extended upto 31st March, 2011. The petitioner alleges that there was no complaint nor any adverse material against him and that the period of deputation of the petitioner and 41 other similarly situated persons was extended, but, the respondents malafidely passed the impugned order cancelling the deputation of the petitioner and repatriating him to his parent department by the impugned order dated 11.06.2010.

The petitioner, being aggrieved, has field the present writ petition contending that the order is not only malafide, but, also punitive. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India 2005 (8) SCC 334, wherein the Supreme Court has held that :- “32. Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. A deputationist indisputably has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. However, there is no bar thereto as well. It may be true that when deputation does not result in absorption in the service to which an officer is deputed, no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as he is continued to be a member of the parent service. 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, unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala fide. An action taken in a post haste manner also indicates malice. [See Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others 2004 (2) SCC 65]. unsuitability

35. In Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, it is categorically stated that when an appointment is made for a specific period, unless any disciplinary proceeding is initiated, a person will be entitled to hold the said post.”

The learned senior counsel further placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. H. Phadnis Vs. State of Maharashtra 1971 (1) SCC 790, in which the Supreme Court has held:-

17. The order of reversion simpliciter will not ordinary amount to a reduction in rank or a punishment. A servant holding a temporary post and Government substantive post may be sent back having lien on his to the substantive post routine administration or because of exigencies of service. A person holding a temporary post may draw a salary higher than that of his substantive post and when he is reverted to his parent department the loss of salary to have any penal consequence. cannot be said Therefore though the Government has right to revert a Government servant from the temporary postto a substantive post, the matter has to be viewed as one of substance and to be considered in ascertaining whether the order is a genuine one of "accident of service" in which a person sent from the substantive post to a temporary post has to go back to the parent post without an aspersion against his characteror integrity or whether the order amounts to a reduction in rank by way of punishment. Reversion by itself will not be a stigma. On the other hand, if there is evidence that the order of reversion is all relevant factors are not " a pure accident of service" but an order in the nature of punishment, Article 311 will be attracted.

In the light of the aforesaid decisions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the repatriation of the petitioner was stigmatic and has cast an aspersion on his character and integrity in the absence of any show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing being given. It was specifically stated by the petitioner that there was no complaint or adverse material against him and that the respondents were satisfied with the petitioner’s performance on the post of District Coordinator.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court is of the opinion that a person, who is on a deputation post, has no legal right to continue on the post in question and could be repatriated at any moment of time as has been held by the Supreme Court in Ratilal B. Soni & others Vs. State of Gujarat & others J.T. 1990 (1) S.C. 229, State of Punjab & others Vs. Inder Singh & others 1997 (8) SCC 372, Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India & another J.T. 2000 (6) S.C. 574 and Mahesh Kumar K. Parmar & others Vs. S.I.G. of Police & others 2002 (9) SCC 485. Paragraph 3 (C) of the counter affidavit reveals that work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory and there was a complaint against the petitioner with regard to his functioning and, that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and, thereafter, the impugned order was passed. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit.

In view of the aforesaid, the court is of the opinion that no malafide is writ large nor the impugned order is punitive. In view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to interfere the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.)