- (1.) ALTHOUGH this case has a convoluted history, but as the case has come up on the third stay application, all the facts of the case need not be narrated at this stage. Moreover, all the issues being raised need not be addressed, for any observation made by this Court may adversely affect the final out come of the writ petition.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Rohit Singh was appointed as a Project Engineer (Senior) in July, 1995 with the Rajasthan Housing Board ('the RHB', for short). On 10.05.2002, the petitioner was sent on deputation from RHB to the Jaipur Development Authority ('the JDA', for short). IN pursuance of the said order, on 17.05.2002, the petitioner was relieved from the RHB and joined the JDA. Vide order dated 08.06.2004 and in consequence of its decision taken on 17.11.2001, the JDA decided to create thirteen posts of Sector Engineer which were to be filled in only by deputation. Meanwhile, after expiry of three years of deputation, the petitioner's term of deputation was extended for a period of one year w.e.f. 17.05.2005. On 02.05.2005, the Government of Rajasthan asked for no objection from the JDA for permanently absorbing the petitioner in the JDA. Vide order dated 06.05.2005, the JDA gave its consent to the Government. Consequently, on 17.08.2005, the Government sanctioned the petitioner's absorption in the JDA. Consequently, the JDA has asked the petitioner to submit his joining report. On 17.08.2005, the petitioner submitted his joining report; he was permanently relieved from the RHB. Meanwhile, certain engineers, who were working as Junior Engineers in the JDA, challenged the order dated 08.06.2004 whereby the JDA had created the posts of Sector Engineer and had decided that the said posts be filled in only through deputation. Vide order dated 22.06.2005, this Court restrained the JDA from absorbing the petitioner on the post of Sector Engineer. The petitioner filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the ex-parte stay order dated 22.06.2005. Vide order dated 11.08.2005, the High Court vacated the said interim order. Since the Junior Engineers were aggrieved by the order being vacated, they filed a special appeal before a learned Division Bench of this Court. However, vide order dated 18.08.2005, the learned Division Bench dismissed the said appeal. But, while admitting the writ petition, vide orders dated 24.03.2006&18.04.2006, the learned Single Judge restrained the JDA from calling any person on deputation, and directed the JDA not to extend the period of any person who is on deputation. It further restrained the JDA from regularising or absorbing any person on deputation. Simultaneously, it granted a liberty to the JDA to make appointment with prior permission of this Court. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a special appeal before a learned Division Bench. Vide order dated 03.05.2006, the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of with the observations that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to seek an extension of his deputation by filing a fresh application before the learned Single Judge. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Single Judge for modification of the order dated 18.04.2006 and for extension of his deputation in JDA till permanent absorption was made on the post of Sector Engineer (Civil). Meanwhile, the JDA also filed an application for modification of the said order. Vide order dated 29.05.2006, while the petitioner's application was dismissed, the order dated 18.04.2006 was modified / clarified only to the extent that the order dated 18.04.2006 would confine itself to the posts encadred and included in the Schedule of the Rules of 1984. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of his application, he again filed a special appeal before a learned Division Bench, challenging the order dated 29.05.2006. Vide order dated 02.06.2006, the learned Division Bench directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue in his present status till the appeal is finally disposed of. The JDA was also directed to decide the case of the petitioner. According to the JDA, it had decided not to absorb the petitioner in the JDA. However, surprisingly, while filing the reply in present writ petition, it declared that it is willing to absorb the petitioner on the said post. Having taken a stand in its reply, curiously, vide order dated 16.06.2008, the petitioner was relieved from the JDA and was directed to report to the RHB, his alleged parental department. However, vide order dated 18.07.2008, the order dated 16.06.2008 was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to continue to work as a Sector Engineer in the JDA. Surprisingly, the JDA again changed its mind and vide order dated 17.12.2008, relieved the petitioner from the said post. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2008, few Sector Engineers have challenged the order dated 17.12.2008 by filing a writ petition before this Court (S.B.C.W.P. No.504/2009, Bhanwar Singh Meena Vs. State&Ors.). Surprisingly, again the JDA changed its mind and vide order dated 30.04.2009, directed the petitioner to join his service. Yet again, vide order dated 14.07.2009, the petitioner has been relieved from the said post and has been directed to report to his parental department, the RHB. Hence, this third stay application before this Court. A bare perusal of the facts narrated above clearly reveals that the petitioner has been turned into a shuttlecock and has been shuttled in and out of JDA through repeated orders. Mr. Prahlad Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that vide order dated 17.08.2005, the Government had directed the JDA to absorb the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner had joined the JDA on 17.08.2005. Secondly, when the petitioner had joined the JDA, he was permanently relieved from his parental department, namely the RHB. Thus, presently, he does not have any lien over any post in the RHB. Thirdly, since the entire issue is sub-judice whether the JDA is empowered to fill up post only on deputation or not, therefore, till the said issue is finally decided by this Court, the petitioner should be permitted to continue on his post. After all, in case he is not permitted to continue, the petitioner would be left in animated suspension between the RHB and the JDA. For, the petitioner cannot go back to the parental department as he has already been relieved from there, and yet he has not been permitted to continue on the post in the JDA. Fourthly, an employee cannot be kept in animated suspension without suspending him. The petitioner has not been suspended for any legally valid reason. Therefore, the petitioner has a strong prima facie case in his favour, and has balance of convenience in his favour. Lastly, in case the petitioner is not permitted to continue, an irreparable loss would be caused to him, both professionally and personally. Hence, the order dated 14.07.2009 should be stayed.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. R.N. Mathur, the learned counsel for the JDA, has strenuously, contended that the petitioner was sent to the JDA on deputation. A deputationist does not have a lien over any post. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim, by way of right, that he should be absorbed. In fact, it is entirely the employer's discretion whether to absorb an employee or not. In the present case, the JDA has decided not to absorb the petitioner. Such a decision has been taken on the advise of the personnel department. Therefore, the order dated 14.07.2009 has been passed legally; the same should not be interfered with. Lastly, the petitioner has already been relieved and the charge has been handed-over to another employee. Hence, the status quo ante cannot be restored. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The JDA is a local authority. It is, thus, an instrumentality of the State. Being part of the State, that too a welfare State, the State is constitutionally bound to act as an ideal employer. Therefore, the JDA is duty bound to be sensitive to the plight and condition of its employee. ;