# Shashank Sachan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 947
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shashank-sachan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52603
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

10 All. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
947
particularly when the allegations of
charging higher rent have been made in
paragraph no. 21 of the petition and in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 7 and 8, indications have
been made regarding close proximity of the
premises of some petitioners and some
private respondents and user of commercial
activities like charging station and, in view
of the existence of commercial nature of
the establishments on the spot, we are
satisfied that the petitioners have failed to
bring their case within the four corners of
above
referred
statutory
provisions/involving public interest.
23.
In
view
of
the
above
discussion, we are not inclined to issue any
direction in the matter however, while
dismissing the petition, we may observe
that since pursuant to the order passed by
this Court, the petitioners have deposited a
sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Registrar
General of this Court and have genuinely
contested the matter as per their case, they
should not be financially penalized and,
therefore, the amount deposited by them is
entitled to be refunded to them in
accordance with law.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed, however, the amount of Rs.
50,000/- deposited by the petitioners before
this Court, vide Demand Draft No. 365745
dated 19.05.2025, shall be refunded to them
immediately on moving an application by
them before the Registrar General of this
Court.

----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 947
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025

Connected with other cases

Shashank Sachan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Pawan Kumar Pandey, Sharad Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh, Sarvesh Kumar
Dubey

Issue for Consideration
1. Nature of deputation and relevance of
condition mentioned in the deputation order,
while
deciding
the
legality
of
order
of
repatriation to the parent department.
2. Permissibility of passing the repatriation order
before alternative hands have become available
through outsourcing under new policy dated
19.07.2022.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Repatriation - Nature of
deputation - Transfer by deputation and
appointment by deputation - Earlier,
petitioners were working as Assistant
teacher - After online examination, they
were posted on deputation on the post of
District Coordinator under Samagra Siksha
Project - After sometime, the impugned
order of repatriation was passed - It's
legality was challenged arguing that the
petitioner's deputation was treated as as
'transfer by deputation', though it was an
'appointment by deputation' - Relevance
of condition mentioned in the deputation
order - Relevance of salary being paid by
parent department - Repatriation order
was passed before alternative hands have
become available through outsourcing
under new policy dated 19.07.2022 -
Permissibility :

Held : The order clearly mentions that lien of
the deputationist will continue to be maintained
in the parent department. No doubt it was a
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
selection
for
deputation,
but,
against
a
temporary post, that too, in a society, even if,
one,
which
was
wholly
funded
by
the
government. Peculiarly, salary was not to be
paid by the borrowing department but would
continue to be paid by the parent department
where the deputationists continued to have their
lien on their permanent post - In view of the
conditions of deputation, in the facts of this
case, it is not possible to hold that it is a case of
appointment on deputation. [Paras 10 and 11]

Held further : Repatriating the appellants
(except appellants of Special Appeal No. 192 of
2025 and Special Appeal No. 197 of 2025) who
were working on a temporary post of District
Coordinators even before alternative hands have
become available through outsourcing, to man
the said posts, would compromise the project
i.e. the Sarv Siksha Abhiyan for the success of
which
these
persons
were
brought
on
deputation, therefore, the repatriation orders to
this extent are against the interest of the Sarv
Siksha Abhiyan itself and are arbitrary. The
learned single judge has failed to appreciate this
aspect of the matter in correct perspective.
[Para 22] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India,
(2012) 7 SCC 757; Union of India v. S. N. Maity,
(2015) 4 SCC 164; I. K. Mansoori (Dr.) v. Union
of India & Ors, 2016 Lab IC 2861 (Rajasthan
High Court); Nilesh Kumar Choubey v. The State
of Madhya Pradesh, 2015 SCC OnLine MP 4632
(Madhya Pradesh High Court) - referred to.

List of Acts
Societies Registration Act, 1860

List of Keywords
Deputation;
Repatriation;
Transfer
by
deputation;
Appointment
by
deputation;
Temporary
post;
Online
examination;
Indefeasible right; Stigma; Outsourcing; Social
mission; Objective of universalization of primary
education;
Selection;
Salary;
Borrowing
department; Parent department; Rationale;
Arbitrary; Capricious manner; Policy decision
dated
19.07.2022;
Engagement
though
outsourcing; Tenure deputation; Alternative
hand; Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan.

Case Arising From
Common Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2025
passed in bunch of writ petitions arising out of
the
impugned
order
of
repatriation
of
petitioners/appellants
to
their
parent
department.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Sharad Pathak, Pawan
Kumar Pandey
Advs. For the Respondent : Sanjay Bhasin,
Senior Advocate; Ran Vijay Singh, Sarvesh
Kumar Dubey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. This is a bunch of special appeals
challenging a common judgment and order
dated 23.05.2025 passed in a bunch of writ
petitions.

2. We have taken up Special
Appeal No. 192 of 2025 (Shashank Sachan
vs. State of U.P.) as the leading appeal
which arises out of Writ A No.6157 of
2025 (Shashank Sachan vs. State of U.P.).
The writ petitions filed by all the appellants
herein have been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that
all the appellants-petitioners were working
as Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools
when applications were invited for being
considered
for
deputation
under
the
Samagra Siksha Project of the 'U.P.
Education for All Project Board' which is a
society totally funded by the government,
60% funding is by the Government of India
and 40% by the State of U.P. The
appellants herein applied for the same. An
online examination was held in which they
were selected. They were accordingly
posted on deputation on the post of District
Coordinator (Community Mobilization).
The task of these District Coordinators was
to coordinate and monitor the teaching staff
10 All. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
949
in a district. The District Basic Education
officer of the concerned district happened
to be the District Project Officer. One of
the orders of deputation dated 19.03.2020
is annexed as Annexure No.6 (page No.59
of the paper book). The appellants were
served an order of repatriation, in this case
(Special Appeal No.192 of 2025) the order
is dated 01.07.2024 which has been issued
by
the
Director,
Rajya
Pariyojana
Nidheshalya. Consequential orders were
passed and it is these orders which were put
to challenge by means of the above referred
writ petitions which have been decided on
23.05.2025. During pendency of the writ
petitions, as informed, the relieving of the
appellants-petitioners had been stayed.

4. The contention of the appellant's
Counsel in nutshell was firstly that it was
not a case of transfer by deputation but one
of appointment/recruitment by deputation,
but repatriation was made treating it to be a
transfer by deputation thereby violating the
law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal
Patel vs. Union of India (2012) 7 SCC
757; Union of India vs S.N. Maity (2015)
4 SCC 164; judgment of the Rajasthan
High Court reported in 2016 Lab IC 2861
I.K. Mansoori (Dr.) vs. Union of India &
Ors; judgment of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court reported in 2015 SCC OnLine
MP 4632 Nilesh Kumar Choubey vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh.

5. It was also contended that while
assessing
the
validity
of
the
order
impugned in the writ petition, the Writ
Court could only see the reasons mentioned
therein and it was not open for it to see
other reasons put forth by the opposite
parties to supplement the said reasons by
any affidavit. It was also submitted that on
such deputation the appellants acquired a
position of status as they were required to
monitor teaching work in various Basic
Schools and to facilitate the same they had
been provided a vehicle with a driver which
had enhanced their status and now the
repatriation takes back their enhanced
status. The work and conduct of the
appellants was satisfactory, therefore, they
were entitled to continue especially as it
was not a 'transfer by deputation' but
'appointment
on
deputation'
and
repatriation would result in loss of the
status acquired by them on deputation.

6. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Bhasin,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
contesting opposite parties submitted that
appellants have a misconception that it was
not
a
transfer
by
deputation
but
appointment by deputation. The post of
District Coordinator on which they were
sent on deputation is a temporary post, in
fact, all the posts in the scheme/project are
temporary posts. The salary of the
appellants even after deputation continued
to be paid by their parent department i.e.
the Basic Education Department and their
lien also continued on their post in their
parent
department,
facts
which
are
mentioned in the order of deputation itself,
therefore,
merely
because
an
online
examination had been held it would not
cloak the deputation as an appointment nor
will it give any indefeasible right to
continue under the project. The cases at
hand are distinguishable on facts vis-a-vis
those which existed in the decisions upon
which the appellants Counsel has placed
reliance including Ashok Kumar Ratilal
Patel (supra) and S.N. Maity (supra).
There is no stigma attached with the order
of repatriation. In the facts of this case the
appellants on deputation did not have any
indefeasible right to continue as such, nor
to get it enforced through writ jurisdiction
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the High Court. Certain government
orders were issued according to which the
minimum tenure of deputation of a
government servant would be three years
and and maximum would be five years.
The
appellants
herein
had
already
completed more than four/five years,
therefore, this is not a case for interference
in an intra Court appeal.

7. He also submitted that a policy
decision was taken by the Executive
Committee of the "U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye
Siksha
Pariyojana
Parishad"
in
its
resolution
(agenda
item
No.6
dated
19.07.2022) for making appointments on
various
temporary
posts
under
the
Pariyojana including the post of District
Coordinator,
by
outsourcing,
on
honorarium of Rupees 40,000 per month
with the required qualification of at least
60% marks in the Masters of Business
Administration acquired from a recognized
Institution/University or PGDM and Master
in Management Studies. The maximum age
limit was to be 21-45 and apart from it
there were other requirements. This policy
decision was approved by the State
Government vide Government Order dated
29.08.2022.
These
decisions
and
government
orders
have
not
been
challenged by the appellants. It was his
submission that the requirements for the
post in question have changed so have the
qualifications and the board being a society
with its own bylaws it cannot be compelled
to
continue
with
the
appellants
on
deputation.

8. In response Shri Sharad Pathak,
learned
Counsel
for
the
appellants
submitted that the object and purpose for
which the appellants were brought on
deputation
still
continues
and
their
repatriation defeats the said object. He
invited our attention in this regard to the
resolution dated 10.10.1990 which has been
brought on record by supplementary
affidavit filed on 09.09.2025, to drive home
the point that there was a particular object
behind bringing the appellants-teachers on
deputation
to
work
as
District
Coordinators. It is nobody's case that the
work has ceased or that the work and
conduct
of
the
appellants
was
not
satisfactory. The policy being relied upon
by the opposite parties as referred cannot
be given retrospective effect, therefore, the
contentions of Shri Bhasin have no legs to
stand and appellants are entitled to continue
on deputation especially as no tenure was
prescribed in the letters by which they were
appointed on deputation.

9. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
records, first and foremost, the 'Sarv Siksha
Abhiyan' was put in motion in the year
2001-2002 by the Government of India in
partnership with the State Governments
with the aim to provide useful and relevant
basic education to all children in the age
bracket of 6 to 14 as is mentioned in the
counter affidavit. It was an attempt to
universalize
and
improve
quality
of
education
through
decentralized
and
content specific planning in a time bound
and process based manner. The 'Sarv
Siksha
Abhiyan'/
'State
Project
of
Education for All' is a society registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
It is designed to function as a social
mission for achieving the objective of
universalization of primary education. The
activities of the Society are wholly funded
by the Government as already stated.
District Project offices have been set up
under the society which are functional in all
the districts of the State. District Basic
Education officer of the concerned district
10 All. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
951
is the District Project officer. Six posts of
District Coordinator, one each for girls
education,
community
mobilization,
training, M.I.S., integrated education and
civil work have been created. These are all
temporary posts. There are no permanent
posts in the project/society. As there were
difficulties being faced by the project, a
decision was taken in 2019 to fill up the
temporary post of District Coordinators by
bringing
Teachers/Assistant
Teachers
working in primary and junior basic
schools run and managed by the Board of
Basic Education U.P. on deputation i.e.
from a homogeneous class of employees so
as
to
avoid
coordination
between
coordinators
brought
from
different
departments.
Accordingly,
applications
were invited and online Computer based
objective type tests were held. The
appellants herein participated in it and were
successful. They were accordingly taken on
deputation to the said society. There are
documents
dated
30.12.2019
and
23.01.2020 annexed as Annexure No.3 and
4 to the paper book which have been issued
by the Rajya Pariyojana Nideshak to all the
District Basic Education Officers, U.P.
asking them to encourage teachers to apply
for such deputation. Both these letters refer
to temporary posts which are to be filled by
deputation and the
letter
dated the
23.01.2020
specifically
refers to the
temporary post of District Coordinator
which are to be filled by deputation.
Annexure No.5 of the paper book is the
advertisement which also mentions that the
posts
are
temporary.
The
document
annexed with Annexure No.5 contains the
required educational qualifications which
was post graduation with minimum 55%
marks
from
a
recognized
University/Institution, preference was to be
given to those having a degree in Masters
of Business Administration, M.Ed/Ph.D
and had degree/diploma or certificate in
computers. The appointment letters issued
to the appellants, one of which is annexed
as Annexure No.6 to the appeal at hand is
as under:-

"प्रेषक,

र ज्य पररयोजन दनिेशक
समग्र दशक्ष , उत्तर प्रिेश,
लखनऊ।

सेव में,

श्री शश ंक सच न
पुत्र श्री िेव करन सच न
सह यक अध्य पक,
कन्य प्र थदमक दवद्य लय-गौह री कबर ई
ब्ल क-गौह री कबर ई जनपि-भहोब ।
पत्र ंकः
अदि०/दज०स०-चयन/
7281/2019-20 दिन ंकः 19 म चग, 2020

दवषयः दजल समन्वयक के पि पर क यगभ र ग्रहण के
सम्बन्ि में।

महोिय

 उ०प्र० सभी के दलए दशक्ष पररयोजन पररषि् के
समग्र दशक्ष के अन्तगगत दिन ंक 27 जनवरी, 2020 को सम्पन्न
ऑनल इन परीक्ष के आि र पर आपको दजल पररयोजन
क य गलय, जनपि-महोब में दजल समन्वयक (स मुि दयक
सहभ दगत्त ) के पि पर प्रदतदनयुदि पर एति्‌नुस र तैन त दकय ज त
है।

 उि नुस र आप दजल समन्वयक (स मुि दयक
सहभ दगत ) महोब के पि पर क यगभ र ग्रहण करने हेतु अपने मूल
दवद्य लय से दनयम नुस र क यगमुि होकर संबंदित दजल बेदसक
दशक्ष अदिक री के समक्ष अपनी योगि न आख्य पत्र प्र दप्त के 10
दिन के अन्िर प्रस्तुत करें। उि पिस्थ पन के प्रदत संबंदित दजल
समन्वयक क वेतन संबंदित के जनपि / मूल दवद्य लय से ही
आहररत दकय ज येग । उि के िम में अनुप लन आख्य र ज्य
प रयोजन क य गलय को दिन ंक 27 म चग, 2020 तक अदनव यगतः
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
उपलब्ि कर यी ज ये। यदि उि अवदि तक आप द्व र संबंदित
जनपि में क यगभ र ग्रहण नहीं दकय ज त है तो आपक चयन
दनरस्त कर दिय ज येग । इस चयन के आि र पर क यगभ र ग्रहण
करने के उपर न्त भी आपक ि रण दिक र (दलयन) आपके मूल
दवभ ग में बन रहेग । "

10. On a bare reading of the said
order, what comes out is firstly, it mentions
about 'posting on deputation', of course,
after
selection.
Secondly,
it
clearly
mentions that after such posting, the salary/
pay of the District Coordinator (on
deputation) would be drawn from the
concerned district/ parent school, meaning
thereby it would not be paid by the
borrowing society but will continue to be
paid by the parent department. Thirdly, the
order clearly mentions that lien of the
deputationist will continue to be maintained
in the parent department. No doubt it was a
selection for deputation, but, against a
temporary post, that too, in a society, even
if, one, which was wholly funded by the
government. Peculiarly, salary was not to
be paid by the borrowing department but
would continue to be paid by the parent
department
where
the
deputationists
continued to have their lien on their
permanent post. In this sense the deputation
in question was a bit different and it is very
difficult on these parameters to come to a
conclusion that it was stricto sensuo an
appointment by deputation.

11. In view of the conditions of
deputation, in the facts of this case, it is not
possible to hold that it is a case of
appointment on deputation of the kind
referred in the case of Ashok Kumar
Ratilal Patel (supra) and S.N. Maity
(supra).

12. When we go through the
judgments relied upon by the appellant's
Counsel, we find that so far as the case of
Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) is
concerned, it was a case where the person
had been appointed on deputation for a
period of one year after selection but he
was not being allowed to join on the
deputation post on the ground that a higher
pay was required to be paid to the
deputationist than what was admissible in
the borrowing department. In this context,
while considering the facts of the case,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that as it
was a case of appointment on deputation,
therefore, it was different from a case of
transfer
on
deputation
and
such
a
deputationist had an indefeasible right to be
treated fairly and equally, and once such
person is selected and offered the letter of
appointment on deputation, the same could
not be canceled except on the ground of
non suitability or unsatisfactory work. In
these circumstances Hon'ble the Supreme
Court
while
quashing
the
order
of
withdrawal of appointment on deputation
directed the concerned respondent to accept
the joining of the appellant for a period of
one year on deputation which was to be
counted from the date of his joining and
clearly
stated
that
other
terms
and
conditions of deputation will remain the
same, therefore, even in that case Hon'ble
the Supreme Court did not say that the
person could continue on deputation
indefinitely or get absorbed on deputation.
It only said that he was entitled to join for
one year.

13. Moreover, in that case the posts
were permanent whereas in the case at hand
the appellants have been sent on deputation
firstly to a society, even if fully funded by
the government, secondly, on temporary
posts, therefore, the said case does not help
the appellants cause.
14. S.N. Maity (supra) case was
one of tenure deputation where the person
10 All. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
953
was sought to be repatriated prematurely,
the tenure of deputation was five years,
therefore, referring to the decision in
Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) and
other decisions, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
held that it was an appointment on
deputation and was a tenure posting. The
fixed tenure was five years or until further
orders unless it is curtailed, but the
curtailment could not be done in an
arbitrary or capricious manner, there had to
be some rationale. Merely because the
words 'until further orders' had been used, it
would not confer allowance on the
employer to act with caprice. In the case at
hand, no tenure has been prescribed in the
deputation order, whether the order of
repatriation, in this case is capricious or
unfair and arbitrary is an aspect which we
will consider hereinafter.

15. The other two decisions relied
upon by the appellants Counsel rendered by
the Rajasthan and the Madhya Pradesh
High Court are also not of much help for
the reasons already discussed hereinabove.

16. As regards the subsequent
policy decision dated 19.07.2022 by the
society and its approval by Government
Order dated 29.08.2022 relied upon by the
respondents, ultimately it is for the
project/society to decide as to what is its
need, what kind of personnel they want to
function as coordinator, the qualifications
for the said post, etc. By the subsequent
policy decision they have prescribed
qualifications different than the one which
they had prescribed while holding the
selection for deputation in which the
appellants were selected. Various other
conditions have been changed. The source
of recruitment itself has been changed. The
policy decision is not under challenge.
Though, this policy decision is not the basis
for the impugned order of repatriation,
nevertheless, it would be a relevant factor
to
consider
as
to
whether
without
alternative hands being available to man
the posts held by the appellants on
deputation such repatriation is justified or it
is arbitrary. Most important, it is not the
case of the opposite parties that in
pursuance to the said policy they have
engaged persons by outsourcing as per the
new policy though it was stated that the
process of engagement through outsourcing
has been initiated. Maybe, this is on
account of the fact that there were interim
orders operating while the writ petition was
pending. Even in these appeals initially
there were certain interim orders which
were clarified on 28.08.2025 in Special
Appeal No. 193 of 2025 which is part of
this bunch and it is this interim order which
is operating.

17. As regard, the contention of
Shri Pathak, learned Counsel for the
appellants that on deputation they had
acquired a status in the sense that they were
given the task of monitoring the teaching in
schools in the district and for the said
purpose they were given a car and driver,
this is hardly a ground for interference in a
deputation matter such as the one at hand.
After repatriation also the salary of the
deputationist will remain the same. The car
and the driver were given for a particular
purpose and on repatriation obviously they
will have to forego this facility but this
cannot be a ground for quashing the
repatriation orders.

18. Now coming to the other aspect
as to whether the reasons given in the order
of repatriation are sustainable. After going
through records what comes out is that in
most of appeals i.e. SPLA No.200 of 2025
arising out of Writ A No.4861 of 2025,
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SPLA No.308 of 2025 arising out of Writ
A No.5242 of 2025, SPLA No.201 of 2025
arising out of Writ A No.5002 of 2025,
SPLA No.203 of 2025 arising out of Writ
A No.4211 of 2025, SPLA No.202 of 2025
arising out of Writ A No.3672 of 2025,
SPLA No.206 of 2025 arising out of Writ
A No.5031 of 2025, SPLA No.195 of 2025
arising out of Writ A No.4991 of 2025,
SPLA No.199 of 2025 arising out of Writ
A No.5032 of 2025, SPLA No.198 of 2025
arising out of Writ A No.5401 of 2025,
SPLA No.194 of 2025 arising out of Writ
A No.4205 of 2025, SPLA No.196 of 2025
arising out of Writ A No.5478 of 2025,
SPLA No.193 of 2025 arising out of Writ
A No.3592 of 2025, the repatriation order
was passed on the ground of completion of
five years of service on deputation,
obviously in view of the Government Order
dated 26.05.2003 prescribing maximum
five years of such service. In this context,
as regards applicability of the Government
Order dated 26.05.2003, we are of the
opinion that though a Government Order
does not apply retrospectively but it will
apply to subsisting deputations unless there
is any condition in the deputation order
such as a tenure of more than five years
etc., which is not the case here. The order
of deputation did not mention any tenure
i.e. it was not a tenure deputation. The
Government Order dated 26.05.2003 issued
subsequently mentions a maximum tenure
of five years on deputation for any
government servant. Application of the said
government order to subsisting deputations,
subject to the above, does not amount to its
retrospective application.

19. As we have held that in facts of
these cases, it cannot be said that the case
of the appellants is one of appointment by
deputation referable to the decisions of
Hon'ble
the
Supreme
Court
cited
hereinabove, therefore, we are of the
opinion that on completion of five years
service they could be repatriated back to
their parent department in view of the
Government Order dated 26.05.2003.

20. In the facts of these cases, the
contention that Government Order dated
26.05.2003 does not apply as these are
cases of appointment on deputation, is not
acceptable for the reasons given earlier
with regard to the nature of deputation.

21. But there is another aspect, that
is whether there are alternative hands
available through outsourcing in terms of
the new policy dated 19.07.2022 for
performing the tasks which the aforesaid
appellants (except appellants of Special
Appeal No.192 of 2025 and Special Appeal
No.197 of 2025 whose cases are different)
are/were performing, if not, then the
decision to repatriate them would be
arbitrary, capricious and counter productive
to the object of the Project/Society itself.
There is nothing on record to suggest that
personnel are available through outsourcing
as per new policy to replace the appellants.

22. Repatriating the appellants
(except appellants of Special Appeal
No.192 of 2025 and Special Appeal No.197
of 2025) who were working on a temporary
post of District Coordinators even before
alternative hands have become available
through outsourcing, to man the said posts,
would compromise the project i.e. the Sarv
Siksha Abhiyan for the success of which
these persons were brought on deputation,
therefore, the repatriation orders to this
extent are against the interest of the Sarv
Siksha Abhiyan itself and are arbitrary. The
learned single judge has failed to appreciate
this aspect of the matter in correct
perspective.
10 All. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
955
23. The case of the appellants
SPLA No.192 of 2025 arising out of Writ
A No.6157 of 2025 and Special Appeal
No.197 of 2025 arising out of Writ A
No.4834 of 2025 are however different. In
SPLA No.192 of 2025 though we find that
the period of five years on deputation had
not expired but the repatriation order refers
to a request by the Basic Education Officer
contained in letter
dated
27.06.2024
mentioning the need/reason for repatriation,
one of which was the absence of adequate
number of teachers in parent school of the
appellant apart from his unsatisfactory
work in the project on deputation
therefore the benefit of the observations
made hereinabove cannot be made
available to the said appellants. We
have
perused
the
letter
dated
27.06.2024, copy of which is annexed
as Annexure No.5 to Special Appeal
No.192 of 2025 by which a request for
repatriation of the appellant has been
made for the reasons mentioned therein,
on the ground inter alia that his work as
District Coordinator has not been very
satisfactory. In this regard the rankings
of June, 2024 have been referred
wherein he stood at 61st place. It is also
been stated that in his original school
i.e. parent department, there are 168
students and only two teachers are
available for teaching, therefore, there
are
no
special
circumstances
for
extending his deputation, accordingly,
his repatriation was requested by the
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Mahoba who also happens to be the
District Coordinator of the Sarv Siksha
Abhiyan. Although in his case period of
five
years
had
not
expired
but
repatriation is sustained on the other
reasons mentioned in the letter dated
27.06.2024 referred in the order of
repatriation.
24. Same is the situation as
regards appellant of Special Appeal
No.197 of 2025. Though at the time of
passing of order of his repatriation
dated 18.06.2024 minimum period of
three years of deputation had expired,
the maximum of five years had not
expired but, there is a reference to the
letter dated 14.03.2024 and 16.05.2024
of the District Basic Education Officer
one
of
which
i.e.
letter
dated
14.03.2024 is on record which reflects
upon the suitability of the said appellant
to
continue
on
deputation
as
a
consequence to which the State Project
Director called for his explanation on
09.04.2024 which is also on record and
thereafter, it appears that the said
appellant has been repatriated after due
consideration,
therefore,
the
observations made hereinabove with
regard to continuance till alternative
hands are available shall not apply in
his case also, just as they shall not
apply in the case of appellant of Special
Appeal No.192 of 2025.

25. Taking into consideration
the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the opinion that the
impugned orders of repatriation of
appellants, except appellants of Special
Appeal No.192 of 2025 and Special
Appeal No.197 of 2025, are liable to be
quashed.

26. We, however, make it clear
that it shall be open for the opposite
parties to initiate process for filling up
the posts of District Coordinators, etc.
i.e. the very posts on which the
appellants are working on deputation,
unless
already
initiated,
through
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
outsourcing in terms of the Policy dated
19.07.2022, and as soon as the said
process is complete and personnel are
engaged having requisite qualifications
as per the new policy for working on the
aforesaid temporary posts, an order of
repatriation can be passed by the opposite
parties and the appellants herein will have
no further right to insist on working on
deputation under the opposite parties. They
will have to join back in their parent
department.

27. In view of the aforesaid, the
judgment of the learned Single Judge
except in respect of Special Appeal No.192
and 197 of 2025 cannot be sustained, it is
accordingly, quashed. All the appeals
except Special Appeal No.192 of 2025 and
Special Appeal No.197 of 2025 are
allowed. The Special Appeal No.192 of
2025 and Special Appeal No.197 of 2025
are dismissed. Needless to say that the
appellants shall be entitled to salary/pay for
the period they have either worked or kept
out of job on account of impugned orders
of repatriation which we have quashed
today.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 956
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ - A No. 11401 of 2025

Kuldeep ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
M.P. Raju

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Legality of the transfer order, when
earlier
an
order
on
the
issue
of
repatriation to parent department was
passed
by
S.S.P.
in
pursuance
of
Judgment of High Court.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Transfer - Earlier,
on the issue of repatriation to parent
department,
an
order
dated
06.08.2025
was
passed
by
S.S.P.
posting petitioner in the Civil Police
in pursuance of Judgment of High
Court
-
However,
later
on
the
impugned
order
dated
10.09.2025
was
passed
again
indicating
petitioner being posted in the Civil
Police
from
U.P.
112
-
Legality
challenged :

Held
:
Petitioner's
grievance
for
repatriation to parent department has
already been fulfilled. In case petitioner is
aggrieved by his posting in Jhansi Region
and wishes to remain in Bulandshahr
Region, liberty is granted to petitioner to
file fresh representation before opposite
party no.2 i.e. Deputy Inspector General
Police
(Karmik)
U.P.
or
any
other
competent authority. In case such a
representation is preferred within a period
of two weeks from today, the same shall
be considered and decided expeditiously
by a reasoned and speaking order within
a period of four weeks. [Para 6] (E-1)

List of Acts
Regulation of Dial 112.

List of Keywords
Transfer;
Repatriation;
Parent
department; Competent authority; Fresh
representation.

Case Arising From
Transfer of petitioner from U.P. 112,
Bulandshahr to Jhansi Region