O. P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dt. 19-3-1987 passed by U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter to be called ' Commission ') reverting the petitioner to his parent department and relieving him forthwith from the post of Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Commission.
(2.) THERE is hardly any dispute regarding facts. The petitioner was originally appointed as Routine clerk in the Education Department on 27-8-1963 and was subsequently appointed as Stenographer and was confirmed on that post. Later on by an order dt. 7-1-83 (Annexure-I) he was appointed as Stenographer in the Commission on deputation and took charge of that post on 5-2-1983. Subsequently a post of Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Commission was created and the Commission decided to fill up that post by direct recruitment. The government servants were also permitted to apply and compete for the post. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for interview before the Commission and after being duly selected for the post, he was given temporary appointment on the post of Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Commission, in the pay scale of Rs. 625-1360 (Vide order dt. 20-7-1984 Annexure IV). In that order, it was also mentioned that the petitioner will hold lien in his parent department for a period of three years or till he was absorbed in the Commission. On 3-9-1985, the petitioner gave his consent for being absorbed in the service of the Commission provided his past services were also counted. On 5-9-85 the Commission passed a resolution that the government be moved for absorption of the petitioner after providing him the benefit of his past services. It is not disputed that no orders regarding absorption have yet been passed and the petitioner has not yet been confirmed on the post of Private Secretary in the Commission, probably because the Commission itself is temporary and no permanent posts have been created. Ultimately by the impugned order dt. 19-3-1987, the Commission passed orders that the services of the petitioners were no more required and reverted him to his parent department. The validity of this order of reversion has been challenged by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner having been regularly selected by the Commission by open competition, he could not be asked to go back to his parent department as he was no more on deputation. We find considerable force in the above contention. From the facts narrated above, it would appear that the petitioner was a regular employee of the respondent Commission having been duly selected by the Commission after due advertisement and open competition. No doubt, he was permanent employee of the Education Department and originally came to the Commission in 1983 as Stenographer on deputation. However, his deputation came to an end with effect from 20-7-1984 when after being regularly selected by the Commission, he was appointed on the upgraded post of Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Commission. It may be correct that he has not yet been confirmed or made permanent on the post and his services in the Commission are still temporary and he may still be holding lien on his permanent post in the Education Department. That, however, does not mean that the Commission can relieve him whenever it likes and ask him to go back to his parent department as if he was still continuing on deputation. As the petitioner has been regularly selected by the Commission, he is no more on deputation and consequently there is no question of the Commission asking him to revert to his parent department. He is an employee of the Commission and the Commission has to deal with him as its own employee. The consequence of his holding a lien on the permanent post is that in case his employment with the Commission comes to an end for any reason, such as, if his post in the Commission is abolished or if his employment is lawfully terminated during the time he retains his lien, he can go back, to his parent department and can claim the post on which he retains lien. Nothing of this sort appears to have happened. Neither the post of Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Commission held by the petitioner has been abolished nor there is any order to show that his services have been terminated. Consequently the Commission has no right to ask him to revert to his parent department. It was contended on behalf of the respondent Commission that the impugned order dated 19-3-1987 shows that the services of the petitioner were no longer required by the Commission and hence the petitioner could be asked to go back to his parent department. We are unable to agree. There is no mention in the impugned order dated 19-3-1987 that the services of the petitioner were terminated. The Commission could, no doubt, deal with the petitioner in accordance with law treating him as its own employee. Once his deputation to Commission has come to an end and he has become an employee of the Commission, there was no question of the Commission asking him to revert to his parent department.
(3.) IN view of the above, we are of the opinion that the action of the respondent Commission in reverting the petitioner to his parent department was without jurisdiction and illegal. Accordingly we allow this petition and quash the orders dated 19-3-1987 (Annexures VIII and IX) passed by the respondent Commission. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been continuing on the post of Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Commission. The respondent shall, however, be at liberty to deal with the petitioner in accordance with law treating him to be its own employee. The parties shall bear their own costs.;