DR. PRASANNA PATKAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by order dated 30.7.2012 whereby he is repatriated to his parent department. The petitioner was brought on deputation from his parent department, i.e., Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakut Gramoday Vishwavidyalaya by order dated 4.8.2011. Shri Mahesh Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention. He submits that the parent department relieved the petitioner for one year for deputation as per order dated 9.8.2011 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner was relieved but was not permitted to assume the charge as Principal, Lalit Kala Mahavidyalaya, Gwalior. The petitioner filed W.P.No. 5784/2011 before this Court and pursuant to order of this Court dated 7.9.2011, the petitioner was permitted to assume the charge only in September, 2011. Learned counsel submits that one year of deputation as per order, Annexure P/4, has to be counted from the date he assumed the charge, i.e., September, 2011. Shri Mahesh Goyal submits that the petitioner has not completed one year and he has been repatriated.

(3.) THE deputation order dated 4.8.2011 only provides that the petitioner is brought on deputation from the date of assuming the charge till further orders on temporary basis. There is no tenure prescribed in the order, Annexure P/2. This is settled in law that the deputationist has no legal right to continue on deputation. The borrowing or lending department in administrative exigencies can seek repatriation. In certain cases where tenure is prescribed in the deputation order itself, on limited grounds interference can be made. However, in the present case, at the cost of repetition, it is noticed that no tenure is prescribed. The tenure prescribed in the order dated 9.8.2011 does not have any binding force on the borrowing department.