# Akhilesh Kumar Mishra v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 379
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-14
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11824 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhilesh-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52658
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Shivendra
Kumar
Singh,
C.S.C.,
Hari
Narayan Singh
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issues for consideration
 (a) Whether petitioner can raise a claim against
repatriation to parent department?
(b) Whether petitioner can claim continuance on
a post on which he was appointed on
deputation?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009:
Section 24 - Deputation by appointment is
a temporary appointment to another post.
Deputation by transfer is a temporary
transfer
of
services
without
fresh
appointment. Deputation does not confer any
vested right of absorption, unless specifically
provided by rules. Therefore, for purposes of
seniority, promotion, and reversion, the legal
consequences differ. An officer deputed by
appointment cannot claim automatic absorption
or seniority in the borrowing department, unless
specifically provided. An officer deputed by
transfer, however, continues as a full member
of the parent service and reverts back upon
completion of the deputation. (Para 50, 52, 54,
55)

B. It is a settled proposition of service
jurisprudence
that
the
expression
temporary, when used in the context of
deputation by appointment, is to be
understood in its plain and ordinary sense,
namely, that the arrangement is purely
provisional in nature and does not create
any
vested
right
in
favour
of
the
incumbent. (Para 57)

The word temporary, in the context of
deputation by appointment is to be
construed as denoting a tenure that is
fragile, transitory, and dependent upon
administrative
convenience,
and
the
incumbent cannot be permitted to assert any
right of continuance once the purpose of
deputation stands exhausted. The continuance
of the deputed employee in such capacity does
not ripen into permanence merely by efflux of
time, nor does it confer any claim of lien,
seniority, or substantive right in the borrowing
department
unless
specific
rules
provide
otherwise. (Para 58, 59)
C.
It
is
well
settled
in
service
jurisprudence that the term deputation
signifies service outside the cadre or
parent department, whereby the service
of an employee are placed at the disposal
of another department or organization
either by way of appointment or by
transfer. In both cases, the appointment is
a temporary arrangement and the person
cannot claim any lien over the said post
and can be reverted back of his parent
department as and when required. As the
advertisement itself specifies that the post of
District Coordinators were temporary in nature,
although the period was not mentioned in the
advertisement but as per the understanding of
this Court and taking into consideration the
meaning of the terms, the incumbent cannot
permitted to assert any right of continuance
once
the
purpose
of
deputation
stands
exhausted. (Para 63)

D. Deputationists have got no indefeasible
right to be retained at the borrowing
department as their lien is maintained in
their parent department. In the present
case, what is to say about maintaining the lien
at the parent department, the petitioners are
paid salary from their parent department and
their lien has been maintained in their parent
department. The deputationists have got no
indefeasible right to be retained in their
borrowing department and they should be
repatriated to their parent department where
they have been maintaining their lien. The
deputation
appointment
may
not
be
of
permanent nature so the deputationists should
either be repatriated to their parent department
as
per
terms
and
conditions
of
such
appointment or in terms of the guidelines so
prescribed under the GO or any circular etc.
dealing such issue or even prior to the period so
prescribed in their appointment order if the
Competent Authority of the parent department
or borrowing department is willing to do so
following the due procedure of law. (Para 65)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

_Characters 0–39,652 of 59,332. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39652 for what follows._

10 All. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
379
be offered only to deserving candidates.
This Court cannot extend its discretionary
jurisdiction to protect such a tainted
appointment. The action of the authorities
in cancelling the appointment of the
petitioner, being in conformity with the
settled principles of law, calls for no
interference.

105. Upon perusal of the documents
placed on record through the counter
affidavit, it emerges clearly that the
petitioner is not the biological offspring of
Smt. Sumitra Devi. Furthermore, the
petitioner has adopted divergent and
contradictory positions at various stages of
the proceedings, thereby undermining the
consistency and credibility of his claims.

106. The records further indicate that
the petitioner's appointment under the
compassionate
grounds
scheme
was
obtained on the basis of an affidavit
executed by his father. Significantly, this
affidavit failed to disclose the fact that the
petitioner
was
already
in
gainful
employment at the time, thereby amounting
to suppression of material facts.

107. Additionally, the record is devoid
of
any
material
indicating
that
the
daughters of Smt. Sumitra Devi had either
provided their consent or issued a noobjection in favour of the petitioner being
treated as a dependent for the purpose of
compassionate
appointment.
Such
intentional suppression of vital facts
constitutes a clear case of fraud practiced
upon the employer. It is a well-established
principle of law that fraud unravels all
solemn transactions, and no individual can
be allowed to benefit from his own
misconduct.

108. Accordingly, this Court is of the
considered view that the compassionate
appointment secured by the petitioner is the
outcome of deliberate suppression of
material facts and misrepresentation, and
therefore, the appointment is void ab initio.
No right, much less a constitutional
protection under Article 311 of the
Constitution of India, can be claimed on the
foundation of fraud.

109. For all the reasons aforestated, I
do not find any error of law in the
impugned order dated 04.07.2025, which
has been passed by the respondent no.2.
Therefore, the writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.

110.
The
Court
records
its
appreciation for the diligent efforts and
valuable assistance rendered by Ms. Shreya
Shukla, Research Associate. The precision
and clarity reflected in the legal research
and analysis submitted by her demonstrate
commendable attention to detail. The Court
acknowledges her contribution in aiding the
adjudication of the matter.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 379
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 11824 of 2025

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Seemant Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Shivendra
Kumar
Singh,
C.S.C.,
Hari
Narayan Singh
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issues for consideration
 (a) Whether petitioner can raise a claim against
repatriation to parent department?
(b) Whether petitioner can claim continuance on
a post on which he was appointed on
deputation?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009:
Section 24 - Deputation by appointment is
a temporary appointment to another post.
Deputation by transfer is a temporary
transfer
of
services
without
fresh
appointment. Deputation does not confer any
vested right of absorption, unless specifically
provided by rules. Therefore, for purposes of
seniority, promotion, and reversion, the legal
consequences differ. An officer deputed by
appointment cannot claim automatic absorption
or seniority in the borrowing department, unless
specifically provided. An officer deputed by
transfer, however, continues as a full member
of the parent service and reverts back upon
completion of the deputation. (Para 50, 52, 54,
55)

B. It is a settled proposition of service
jurisprudence
that
the
expression
temporary, when used in the context of
deputation by appointment, is to be
understood in its plain and ordinary sense,
namely, that the arrangement is purely
provisional in nature and does not create
any
vested
right
in
favour
of
the
incumbent. (Para 57)

The word temporary, in the context of
deputation by appointment is to be
construed as denoting a tenure that is
fragile, transitory, and dependent upon
administrative
convenience,
and
the
incumbent cannot be permitted to assert any
right of continuance once the purpose of
deputation stands exhausted. The continuance
of the deputed employee in such capacity does
not ripen into permanence merely by efflux of
time, nor does it confer any claim of lien,
seniority, or substantive right in the borrowing
department
unless
specific
rules
provide
otherwise. (Para 58, 59)
C.
It
is
well
settled
in
service
jurisprudence that the term deputation
signifies service outside the cadre or
parent department, whereby the service
of an employee are placed at the disposal
of another department or organization
either by way of appointment or by
transfer. In both cases, the appointment is
a temporary arrangement and the person
cannot claim any lien over the said post
and can be reverted back of his parent
department as and when required. As the
advertisement itself specifies that the post of
District Coordinators were temporary in nature,
although the period was not mentioned in the
advertisement but as per the understanding of
this Court and taking into consideration the
meaning of the terms, the incumbent cannot
permitted to assert any right of continuance
once
the
purpose
of
deputation
stands
exhausted. (Para 63)

D. Deputationists have got no indefeasible
right to be retained at the borrowing
department as their lien is maintained in
their parent department. In the present
case, what is to say about maintaining the lien
at the parent department, the petitioners are
paid salary from their parent department and
their lien has been maintained in their parent
department. The deputationists have got no
indefeasible right to be retained in their
borrowing department and they should be
repatriated to their parent department where
they have been maintaining their lien. The
deputation
appointment
may
not
be
of
permanent nature so the deputationists should
either be repatriated to their parent department
as
per
terms
and
conditions
of
such
appointment or in terms of the guidelines so
prescribed under the GO or any circular etc.
dealing such issue or even prior to the period so
prescribed in their appointment order if the
Competent Authority of the parent department
or borrowing department is willing to do so
following the due procedure of law. (Para 65)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India
& Another, (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 757
(Para 12 (i))
2. State of Orrisa Vs. Orissa Khadi & Village
Industries Board Karmachari Sangh & Another,
2023 SCC OnLine SC (28) (Para 12 (ii))
10 All. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
381
3. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Others,
Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025 (Para 22)
4. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Others,
Writ (A) No. 6157 of 2024 (Para 23)
5. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Others,
Writ (A) No. 6157 of 2024 (Para 24)
6. Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India
& Others, 2012(7) SCC 757 (Para 24)
7.
Director,
Institute
of
Management
Development, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava,
(1992) 4 SCC 33 (Para 29)
8. Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and another,
(2000) 5 SCC 362 (Para 33)
9. State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh
and others, (1997) 8 SCC 372 (Para 34)
6. Union of India and another Vs. S.N. Maity and
another, (2015) 4 SCC 164 (Para 35)
7. Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Managing Director,
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and others,
(1999) 8 SCC 381, (Para 46)
8. Satendra Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P.
Thru. Secy. Basic Education And 3 Others,
2025:AHC-LKO:30734 (Para 65)
9. Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India
and another, (2012) 7 SCC 757 (Para 65)
10. Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and another,
(2000) 5 SCC 362 (Para 65)
11. Mahesh Chandra Gautam Vs. State of U.P. &
others, 2005 SCC OnLine All 563 (Para 65)
12. Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. &
others, 2024 SCC OnLine All 2326 (Para 65)
13. D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd, (1993)
3 SCC 259 (Para 65)

List of Acts
 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009

List of Keywords
 temporary,
appointment,
recruitment,
deputation, deployment.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Seemant Singh
For Respondent(s): Shivendra Kumar Singh,
C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Seemant Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shivendra
Kumar
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no.2, Mr. Hari Narayan Singh,
learned counsel for respondent no.3/BSA
and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed
with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned office notification
dated 06.08.2025 issued by the State
Project Director, Uttar Pradesh Education
for all Project Board whereby the petitioner
has been repatriated to the post of Assistant
Teacher in Primary School Hashkheda,
Block- Machhrehta, District- Sitapur and
further District Basic Education Officer,
Aligarh has also been directed to relieve the
petitioner to his original school at Sitapur.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents not to interfere in the peaceful
working of petitioner on the post of District
Co-ordinator (Girls Education) at Project
Director Office, Education for all, District
Aligarh.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the District Basic Education
Officer, Aligarh, not to relieve the
petitioner from the post of District
Coordinator (Girls Education) at Project
Director Office, Education for all, District
Aligarh, on the basis of impugned order
dated 06.08.2025 issued by the State
Project Director, Uttar Pradesh Education
for all Project Board."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits
that
the
impugned
office
notification repatriating the petitioner to his
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
original school at Sitapur is per se illegal,
for the reason that the government order
dated 26.05.2003, on the basis of which the
impugned office notification has been
passed by the State Project Director, Uttar
Pradesh Education for All Project Board, is
not at all applicable to the employees of
U.P. Basic Education Board.

4. He further submits that petitioner
has not been sent on deputation as a result
of transfer rather the case of the petitioner
is that he has been sent on deputation as a
result of selection and appointment, though
on a temporary basis.

5. The temporary appointment of
petitioner
on
the
post
of
District
Coordinator
at
District-
Aligarh
is
admittedly based on a selection in which
petitioner
came to
be
selected and
appointed
on
the
post
of
District
Coordinator without there being any
specified
period.
Even
the
advertisement/Notification
dated
21.12.2019
does
not
prescribe
the
appointment of District Coordinators for a
fixed period but only refers to a temporary
basis, inasmuch as there was also no
mention of deputation.

6. The appointment order dated
28.07.2020 refers to appointment on
deputation,
but
no
fixed
period
is
mentioned, nor is there any reference to a
government order or circular which may
have prescribed any specific period of
deputation. Further the appointment order
dated 28.07.2020 clearly reflects that the
respondents had proceeded to appoint the
petitioner
on
the
basis
of
notification/advertisement
dated
21.12.2019, on deputation by selection and
appointment.

7.
The
government
order
dated
29.08.2022, is appended to the covering
letter dated 01.09.2025 supplied by the
learned Chief Standing Counsel to the
Hon'ble Court which reveals that the said
government order cannot be applied with
retrospective effect as the same would
apply from the date of issuance i.e.,
29.08.2022, meaning thereby the vacancies
of District Coordinators as on 29.08.2022
has been directed to be filled up through
outsourcing. As such it cannot include the
vacancies on which District Coordinators
like the petitioner were already working
prior to his illegal removal from the post of
District Coordinator at District- Aligarh.

8. He further submits that learned
Chief Standing Counsel could not produce
any government order or circular before the
Hon'ble Court on the basis of which the
selection and appointment of the petitioner
on the post of District Coordinator at
Aligarh has been made in which the
specified period of time may have been
given as such petitioner is entitled to
continue on his respective post of District
Coordinator (Girls Education) at Aligarh.

9. He further submits that learned
Chief Standing Counsel has drawn the
attention of the Hon'ble Court to the
instructions dated 01.09.2025 in which the
minutes of the meeting dated 10.10.2019
are given. In minute No.4/5 deals with the
issue in question relating to the selection
and appointment of District Coordinators in
different districts as such the petitioner has
meticulously gone through the minutes of
meeting dated 10.10.2019 which starts
from Page No.17 to Page No.21 in which
the procedure of selection and appointment
is given but according to the understanding
of the petitioner no specified period of time
10 All. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
383
for appointment on the post of District
Coordinator is given.

10. So far as Agenda No.5, which
continues from page No.21 to page No.22
is concerned, the petitioner finds that the
period
of
contract
which
has
been
prescribed for one year (subject to renewal
upon satisfactory work) but it relates only
to District Coordinator (MIS) i.e., District
Coordinator
Management
Information
System which has to be filled up on
contractual basis while the post of District
Coordinator (Special Training), District
Coordinator
(Training),
District
Coordinator (Girls Education) and District
Coordinator
(Community
Involvement)
have to be filled up by deputation from the
regular teachers working under U.P. Basic
Education Board.

11. He further submits that no
government order or circular has been
issued on the basis of the aforesaid minutes
of
the
meeting
dated
10.10.2019
prescribing any specified period of time
may have been given. Further, the State
Project Director, Uttar Pradesh, Education
for All Project Office and State Project
Office, Lucknow issued a circular dated
30.12.2019 addressed to District Basic
Education Officers of all districts of Uttar
Pradesh in reference to advertisement dated
21.12.2019 issued by State Project Office,
Lucknow directing the District Basic
Education Officers to inspire the regular
teachers working in the schools regulated
by U.P. Basic Education Board to apply
against the advertisement for appointment
on the post of District Coordinator through
the selection process. The State Project
Director, Lucknow did not prescribe any
fixed period of time for which the District
Coordinators
were
required
to
be
appointed.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
in support of his submissions, has relied
upon the following judgments:-

(i) In the case of Ashok Kumar
Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India &
Another, reported in (2012) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 757, the Apex Court has
held:-

"In Paragraph No.6 deals with the
terms and conditions for deputation has
been given in which the period of
deputation is of one year and extendable for
a total period not exceeding 3 years on
yearly basis and further in paragraph No.13
deals with the transfers on deputation
which are ordinarily made as against
equivalent post from one cadre to another
and in paragraph No.14 deals with
appointment (Recruitment) on deputation.
A person who applies for appointment on
deputation has an indefeasible right to be
treated fairly and equally and once person
is selected and offered with the letter of
appointment on deputation, the same
cannot be cancelled except on the ground
of non suitability or unsatisfactory work
and also in paragraph No.15 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court holds that the present case
is not a case of transfer on deputation it is a
case of appointment on deputation for
which advertisement was issued after due
selection, the offer of appointment was
issued in favour of the appellant and the
respondents cannot refuse to accept the
joining of most eligible selected candidate
except on ground of unsuitability and
unsatisfactory performance. The present
case of the petitioner is at more better
footing for the reason that there is no
specified period of time as either provided
in the notification/advertisement dated
21.12.2019
nor
provided
in
the
appointment
order
dated
28.07.2020,
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore petitioner shall continue to hold
the post of District Coordinator at Aligarh
subject to suitability and satisfactory
performance."

(ii) The Apex Court in the case of
State of Orrisa Vs. Orissa Khadi &
Village Industries Board Karmachari
Sangh & Another, reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC (28), has held:-

"The employees of the Board
cannot be at par with the employees of
State Government for all purposes."

13. Learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 has made following submissions:-

14. Learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 submits that through a meeting of the
Executive Council of the Parishad held on
19.07.2022, a decision was taken in
pursuance of which the Project Director
had issued an advertisement wherein an
application were invited for appointment on
temporary post of District Coordinator
(Training),
District
Coordinator
(Community Involvement) and District
Coordinator (Girls Education) wherein an
online applications were invited between
23.12.2019 to 05.01.2020 from eligible
Assistant Teachers of Primary Schools run
by U.P. Basic Education Board.

15. He further submits that the said
advertisement inviting online applications
was issued in pursuance of the decision
taken by the Executive Council of the
Board
in
the
52nd
meeting
dated
10.10.2019 for appointment on temporary
basis on the post of District Coordinator
(Training),
District
Coordinator
(Community Involvement) and District
Coordinator
(Girls
Education)
on
deputation and for further action, the
Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Basic
Education, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow had
been authorized by the Executive Council
of the Board.

16. He further submits that in
pursuance of the decision of the Executive
Council, online applications were invited
and
after
completing
the
necessary
formalities, selection and appointment
through deputation were made to the posts
of District Coordinator (Training), District
Coordinator (Community Involvement) and
District Coordinator (Girls Education).

17. He further submits that later on the
Executive Council of the Board in its
meeting held on 19.07.2022 had taken a
decision to fill up the posts of District
Coordinator
(Training),
District
Coordinator (Community Involvement) and
District Coordinator (Girls Education)
through outsourcing and in pursuance of
the said decision taken by the Executive
Council in its meeting held on 19.07.2022,
the Principal Secretary, Basic Education
Department, U.P., Lucknow had issued a
circular on 19.08.2022 addressed to the
Director General, School Education, Uttar
Pradesh an Director, State Project, Samagra
Shiksha,
Uttar
Pradesh
for
making
selection and appointment on the post of
District Coordinator (Training), District
Coordinator (Community Involvement) and
District Coordinator (Girls Education)
through an outsourcing agency, to be
selected by means of GEM Portal in order
to provide eligible candidates on a fixed
honorarium.

18. He further submits that the
petitioner
who
had
applied
online
application in the year 2019-20 had been
issued appointment letter dated 28.07.2020
wherein it was provided that the lien of the
10 All. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
385
petitioner would remain with the parent
department and that he would draw salary
from his original school/district.

19. He further submits that the State
Government, vide government order dated
26.05.2003 addressed to all Departments
had already provided that the period of
deputation shall not be increased in any
case after expiry of 5 years and thereafter,
the
concerned
employee
must
be
repatriated to his parent Department.

20. He submits that Section 24 of
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 lays down the duties
of teachers, in which the most important
being to maintain regularity and punctuality
in attending School and complete the
curriculum. Section 24 of RTE Act, 2009 is
being quoted herein below:-

"Section 24 in The Right of
Children
to
Free
and
Compulsory
Education Act, 2009.24. Duties of teachers
and redressal of grievances.

(1) A teacher appointed under
sub-section (1) of section 23 shall perform
the following duties, namely:-

(a)
maintain
regularity
and
punctuality in attending school;

(b) conduct and complete the
curriculum
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of sub-section (2) of section 29;

(c) complete entire curriculum
within the specified time;

(d) assess the learning ability of
each child and accordingly supplement
additional instructions, if any, as required;

(e) hold regular meetings with
parents and guardians and apprise them
about the regularity in attendance, ability to
learn, progress made in learning and any
other relevant information about the child;
and

(f) perform such other duties as
may be prescribed.

(2) A teacher committing default
in performance of duties specified in subsection (1), shall be liable to disciplinary
action under the service rules applicable to
him or her:Provided that before taking such
disciplinary action, reasonable opportunity
of being heard shall be afforded to such
teacher.

(3) The grievances, if any, of the
teacher shall be redressed in such manner
as may be prescribed."

21. As per Rule 27 of the 1981 Rules,
the primary duty of the Teacher is to teach
in his school and complete the prescribed
curriculum. The Rule 27 of the 1981 Rules
is being quoted herein below:-

"27. Prohibition of deployment of
teachers for non-educational No Teacher
shall be owned, controlled or substantially
purpose. financed by funds provided
directly or indirectly by the appropriate
Government or by a local authority, shall
ensure that vacancy of teacher in a School
under its control shall not exceed then per
cent, of the total sanctioned strength.

9. That from perusal of the
Section-24 of the RTE Act, 2009 and Rule27 of 1981 Rules, the primary duty of the
petitioner is to maintain regularity and
punctuality in the School and to complete
the curriculum because his appointment on
the post of District Coordinator was on
temporary basis on deputation with lien
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
protected in his original school and District,
therefore, petitioner being a deputationist
cannot seek any remedy in law against his
repatriation order because a deputationist
has no vested right to continue in the
transferred department and he can be
repatriated
any
time
even
before
completion of his period, if any, mentioned
in the deputation order and no relief can be
claimed in teeth of Section 24 of RTE Act,
2009 r/w Rule 27 of 1981 Rules.

10. That the Coordinate Bench of
this Hon'ble Court at Lucknow vide order
dated 23.05.2025 passed in Writ (A) No.
6157 of 2024 (Shashank Sachan Vs. State
of U.P. & Others), in Paragraph No. 23, 24,
25, 27, 29 & 30 are observed as follows:-

23. Now, I would like to deal
with the case laws so cited by learned
counsel for the parties. Paras-8, 12, 13, 14,
17 & 18 of the case in Re: Ashok Kumar
Ratilal Patel (supra) read as under:-

"8.North Gujarat University in
turn by letter dated 5th March, 2010
informed the 2nd respondent the approval
of deputation given by the Executive
Council of the North Gujarat University
with further information that the appellant
will be relieved on 17th March, 2010. The
2nd respondent was further informed that
the present basic pay of the appellant is Rs.
19,100 in the pay scale of Rs. 16,400-45020,900-500-22,400 and very shortly the
same will be revised as per the 6th Pay
Commission and will be fixed in Revised
Pay
Band+Academic
Grade
Pay
of
Rs.37,400 67,000+Rs.10,000. The 2nd
respondent on receipt of the said letter
issued the impugned letter dated 11th
March, 2010 and withdrew the offer of
appointment of the appellant on the ground
that deputation from higher post to lower
post is not admissible under rules."

12. On the other hand, according
to the respondents, they having realised that
the pay of the parent department of the
appellant could not be paid as he was
getting higher pay as Director in the North
Gujarat University, the offer of deputation
was withdrawn. It was further contended
that a person getting higher scale of pay
cannot be deputed against a lower scale of
pay and the appellant has no right to claim
his entitlement to the post of Director,
AICTE.

13.
Ordinarily
transfers
on
deputations are made as against equivalent
post from one cadre to another, one
department to another, one organisation to
another, or one Government to another; in
such case a deputationist has no legal right
in the post. Such deputationist has no right
to be absorbed in the post to which he is
deputed. In such case, deputation does not
result into recruitment, as no recruitment in
its true import and significance takes place
as the person continues to be a member of
the parent service.

14.
However,
the
aforesaid
principle cannot be made applicable in the
matter of appointment(recruitment) on
deputation. In such case, for appointment
on deputation in the services of the State or
organisation or State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the
provisions of Article 14 and Article 16 are
to be followed. No 11 person can be
discriminated nor it is open to the
appointing authority to act arbitrarily or to
pass any order in violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. A person, who
applies for appointment on deputation has
indefeasible right to be treated fairly and
10 All. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
387
equally and once such person is selected
and offered with the letter of appointment
on deputation, the same cannot be
cancelled except on the ground of non-
suitability or unsatisfactory work.

17. Going by the principles as
referred to above, we are constrained to
state that the High Court failed to
appreciate the difference between "transfer
on deputation" and "appointment on
deputation" and erred in holding that the
appellant has no right to claim entitlement
to the post of Director. As the appellant
was selected after due selection and was
offered appointment on deputation, and, in
absence of any valid ground shown by the
respondents, we hold that the appellant has
a right to join the post and the respondents
were bound to accept his joining.

18. For the reasons aforesaid, the
impugned
order
of
withdrawal
of
appointment dated 11th March, 2010 and
the order of the Division Bench of Gujarat
High Court cannot be sustained and they
are accordingly set aside. As the post of
Director is vacant, in view of the interim
order of this Court dated 9th May, 2011,
we direct the 2nd respondent to accept the
joining of the appellant for a period of one
year on deputation which is to be counted
from the date of his joining and other terms
and conditions of deputation will remain
same. The North Gujarat University is
directed to relieve the appellant with
further direction to 2nd respondent to
accept the joining of the appellant within
one week from the date of reporting by the
appellant."

(emphasis supplied)

24. Para-6 of the case in re: Kunal
Nanda (supra) reads as under:-"On the legal
submissions also made there are no merits
whatsoever.

It is well settled that unless the
claim of the deputationist for permanent
absorption in the department where he
works on deputation is based upon any
statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having
the force of law, a deputationist cannot
assert and succeed in any such claim for
absorption. The basic principle underlying
deputation
itself
is
that
the
person
concerned can always and at any time be
repatriated to his parent department to
serve in his substantive position therein at
the instance of either of the departments
and there is no vested right in such a person
to continue for long on deputation or get
absorbed in the department to which he had
gone on deputation. The reference to the
decision reported in Rameshwar Prasad vs.
M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.
And others [1999 (8) SCC 381] is
inappropriate
since,
the
consideration
therein was in the light of statutory rules
for absorption and the scope of those rules.
The claim that he need not be a graduate
for absorption
and
being a
service
candidate, on completing service of 10
years he is exempt from the requirement of
possessing a degree need mention, only to
be rejected. The stand of the respondent
department that the absorption of a
deputationist being one against the direct
quota, the possession of basic educational
qualification
prescribed
for
direct
recruitment i.e., a degree is a must and
essential
and
that
there
could
no
comparison of the claim of such a person
with one to be dealt with on promotion of a
candidate who is already in service in that
department is well merited and deserves to
be sustained and we see no infirmity
whatsoever in the said claim."
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. Paras-6 and 8 of the case in
re: Mahesh Chandra Gautam (supra)
(emphasis supplied) read as under:-"6. In
my view, the contentions raised by the
learned Counsels for the petitioners cannot
be accepted. It is the prerogative of the
employer to call back its employees sent on
deputation. The employee, who has been
sent on deputation and, in the present case,
namely, petitioners have no right or lien on
the deputation post. Even if period has been
cut short, the petitioners have no right or
claim on that post and they cannot stand
before this Court and submit that they are
entitled to continue on that post till the
original period of deputation. In Hari Om
Tripathi vs. Nideshak, Rajya Nagar Vikas
Adhikaran, this Court held that the
employee, who was sent on deputation
could be reverted back to the parent
department prior to the expiry of the
stipulated period, since the employee
cannot claim any right on the deputation
post.

8. In the Kunal Nanda vs. Union
of India, the Supreme Court held that a
deputationist can always and at any time be
repatriated to his parent department either
at
the
instance
of
the
borrowing
Department or on the instance of the
lending department. The Supreme Court
further held that incumbent who had which
has been posted had no vested right to
continue on deputation or get absorbed in
borrowing department. The Supreme Court
held:-

'On the legal submissions made
also there are no merits whatsoever. It is
well settled that unless the claim of the
deputationist for permanent absorption in
the department where he works on
deputation is based upon any statutory
Rule, Regulation or Order having the force
of law, a deputationist cannot assert and
succeed in any such claim for absorption.
The basic principle underlying deputation
itself is that the person concerned can
always and at any time be repatriated to his
parent
department
to
serve
in
his
substantive position therein at the instance
of either of the departments and there is no
vested right in such a person to continue for
long on deputation or get absorbed in the
department to which he had gone on
deputation'."

(emphasis supplied)

26. This Court in the case in re:
Dinesh Kumar Singh (supra) has followed
the aforesaid settled proposition of law.

27. Notably, para-9 in re: D.K.
Yadav (supra), which has been discussed
above, would not be applicable in the
present case. So far as the fact and
circumstances of the case in re: Ashok
Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) is concerned,
notably the deputationist was selected on
the post on deputation to the lower post
from
higher
post,
therefore
such
appointment was withdrawn/ cancelled by
the Competent Authority but the Apex
Court has held that a person who applies
for appointment on deputation has an
indefeasible right to be treated fairly and
equally and once such person is selected
and offered with the letter of appointment
on deputation, the same cannot be
cancelled except on the ground of nonsuitability or unsatisfactory work. The facts
and circumstances of the present case are
altogether
different
inasmuch
as
the
petitioners have not been selected on the
post of District Coordinator on deputation
having lower pay-scale and emoluments
than they were having prior to their
appointment, rather they all are getting
10 All. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
389
some more incentive and their salary etc. is
being paid by their parent department and
their selection has not been cancelled,
rather they have been repatriated to their
parent department. Therefore, the direction
of Apex Court giving in para-13 of the
aforesaid judgment would be applicable
whereby the general principles in respect of
law of deputation has been defined. Hence,
the present petitioners cannot get any
benefit from the judgment of Ashok Kumar
Ratilal Patel (supra) in the present case.

28. Hence, to sum up, the
deputationists have got no indefeasible
right to be retained in their borrowing
department and they should be repatriated
to their parent department where they have
been maintaining their lien. The deputation
appointment may not be of permanent
nature so the deputationists should either be
repatriated to their parent department as per
terms and conditions of such appointment
or in terms of the guidelines so prescribed
under the Government Order or any
circular etc. dealing such issue or even
prior to the period so prescribed in their
appointment
order
if
the
Competent
Authority of the parent department or
borrowing department is willing to do so
following the due procedure of law.

29. In the light of what have been
considered here-in-above including the
case laws, I do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order of
repatriation dated 01.07.2024 and the
relieving order dated 02.07.2024 as well as
other similar orders under challenged in the
bunch of writ petitions, so this bunch of
writ
petitions
are
dismissed
being
misconceived. The interim orders granted
in the bunch of writ petitions are hereby
vacated. The petitioners of this bunch of
writ petitions are directed to submit their
joining at their parent department pursuant
to their repatriation orders.

30. Consequently, all the writ
petitions of this bunch are dismissed."

22. The Hon'ble Division Bench in
Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025 (Shashank
Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Others) vide its
order dated 05.06.2025 has been pleased to
observe as follows: -

"As prayed on behalf of Shri
Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, arguing counsel for
opposite party, list this case tomorrow, i.e.,
06.06.2025 as fresh. Interim orders, which
are operating in writ petitions, shall
continue to operate till tomorrow. Order
Date:- 5.6.2025."

23. He next submits that the judgment
and order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court
at Lucknow in Writ (A) No. 6157 of 2024
(Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. &
Others) has not been stayed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench in the Special Appeal and
vide interim order dated 05.06.2025 the
only relief which was given to the writ
petitioners was that the interim orders
which were operating in the writ petitions
was directed to continue to operate. In the
present writ petition, there is no interim
order and the petitioner has deliberately
disobeyed the order dated 06.08.2025
passed by Respondent No. 2 by which the
petitioner had been repatriated to his
original post of Assistant Teacher, Primary
School Hans Khera, Macharhata, District
Sitapur and therefore, the petitioner by
failing to join as Assistant Teacher, in
violation of Section 24 of the R.T.E. Act,
2009 and Rule 27 of 1981 Rules has caused
serious academic loss to the students of the
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
said school. Therefore, he is not entitled to
any relief from this Hon'ble Court.

24. The Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ
(A) No. 6157 of 2024 (Shashank Sachan
Vs. State of U.P. & Others) in Paragraph
No. 27, 29 & 30 has been pleased to clearly
distinguish the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Ratilal
Patel Vs. Union of India & Others reported
in 2012(7) SCC 757 and holding the same
is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case as the
said judgment was in respect to the
selection on the post of Director on
deputation and not continuation thereof.

25. He lastly submits that petitioner
has no indefeasible right to continue on
deputation for an indefinite period, and by
non-teaching in the original school will
cause serious loss to the students and no
relief should be given in violation of
Section 24 of the R.T.E. Act and Rule 27 of
1981 Rules.

26. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

27. Before entering into merits of the
case, it would be appropriate to understand
certain terms like deputation, temporary,
temporary appointment on deputation,
deputation by appointment and deputation
by transfer.

28. Interpretation of the Term
"Temporary":- The term "temporary" has
not been defined in most statutory
frameworks; however, its interpretation has
been
elucidated
through
judicial
pronouncements.
The
word
denotes
something that is not permanent or
enduring in nature but is meant to exist,
operate, or continue for a limited duration
or until the happening of a specified event.

29. It is a settled position of law that
the expression "temporary" conveys a state
of affairs intended to last for a time only, as
distinguished from something intended to
be permanent or of indefinite duration. It is
well
established
that
a
temporary
appointment does not confer any right of
permanence merely by the passage of time
or continuation of service.

30. Similarly, in the case of Director,
Institute of Management Development,
U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava, (1992) 4 SCC
33, it was held that a person appointed on a
temporary or ad hoc basis holds no right to
continue once the term or purpose for
which such appointment was made comes
to an end. The tenure of a temporary
arrangement,
therefore,
ceases
automatically on expiry of the stipulated
period or completion of the work.

31. Hence, from the above judicial
exposition, it is evident that the term
"temporary"
signifies
a
transitory,
provisional, and non-permanent condition
which exists for a limited time or purpose,
and which ceases automatically upon
completion of that period or objective. It
carries no vested right to continuity or
regularization.

32.