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

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 486
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6157 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shashank-sachan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53392
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Service Law - Deputation - Repatriation -
District Coordinators under Samagra Shiksha
Abhiyan - Deputation from Basic Education
Department - Nature of appointment explained
-
Government
Order
dated
26.05.2003
providing maximum deputation period of three
years, extendable to five years - After expiry,
repatriation mandatory - Deputationists have no
indefeasible right to continue in borrowing
department - Appointment not cancelled, only
repatriation to parent cadre - No violation of
natural justice - Fundamental duty under Article
21-A (Right to Education) requires teachers to
return to teaching duties - Repatriation order
upheld.

Held: Deputation is temporary by nature; no
vested right accrues to continue in the
borrowing department. Petitioners, Assistant
Teachers appointed as District Coordinators on
deputation, had completed more than 4-5
years. In view of G.O. dated 26.05.2003, their
repatriation to parent department is valid,
justified, and not violative of natural justice.
Distinction
between
"appointment
on
deputation"
and
"transfer
on
deputation"
discussed. Petitioners cannot claim continuance
as of right. Writ Petitions dismissed; interim
orders vacated.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adverse to the petitioner and may influence
the disciplinary authority in taking final
action therefore, I refrain myself from
expressing any final view qua the act of
'body shaming' but since the petitioner has
been indicted by the internal complaint
committee, prima facie a case is made out
to justify the department in placing the
petitioner under suspension pending final
action in the disciplinary proceedings. In
the case of C.B.Boby v. State of Kerala
2025 SCC OnLine Ker 211 the High Court
has expressed its view that body shaming is
not acceptable in our society. Vide
paragraph 10 the court has observed thus:

" 10. Before concluding, I am
forced to say that body shaming is not
acceptable in our society. Comments about the
body of a person as too fat, too skinny, too
short, too tall, too dark, too black, etc. should
be avoided. There is a sense that we are all
"too something," and we are all "not enough".
This is life. Our bodies will change, our minds
will change and our hearts will change.
Everybody should be vigilant while making
comments about others, whether they are men
or women. I leave it there."

17. Coming to the other arguments
regarding non-compliance of provisions for
constituting internal complaint committee or
that procedure has not been followed as
contemplated under Section 11, I am of the
considered view that this aspect can be looked
into by the appellate authority exercising its
power under Section 18 of the Act in the event
petitioner prefers an appeal. Though the
constitution of internal complaint committee is
a legal issue but other factual issues are also
involved like in the given facts and
circumstances whether petitioner can be
subjected to final action in terms of the
punishment without following the procedure
prescribed under the departmental punishment
and appeal rules and all this can be gone into
by the appellate authority itself and this would
also include consideration of question as to
validity of the recommendations made by the
internal complaint committee.

18. Under the circumstances while
I decline to grant indulgence in the matter
of suspension I dispose of this petition at
this stage with a direction to the petitioner
to prefer an appeal within a period of four
weeks from today and in the event any such
appeal is preferred, the same shall be
disposed of by the appellate authority by
means of a reasoned and speaking order
within a further period of two months. It is
further provided that the appellate authority
will look into all legal aspects of the matter
that may be raised by the petitioner in
appeal.

19. It is further provided that until
the appeal is finally decided no disciplinary
action shall be taken against the petitioner
pursuant to the recommendations made by
the internal complaint committee and
suspension of petitioner shall also abide by
the final out come of the appeal, however,
petitioner
shall
be
regularly
paid
subsistence allowance so long as he
remains under suspension.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 486
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 6157 of 2024
With other connected cases

Shashank Sachan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent
5 All. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
487
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pawan Kumar Pandey, Ajay Kumar

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

Service Law - Deputation - Repatriation -
District Coordinators under Samagra Shiksha
Abhiyan - Deputation from Basic Education
Department - Nature of appointment explained
-
Government
Order
dated
26.05.2003
providing maximum deputation period of three
years, extendable to five years - After expiry,
repatriation mandatory - Deputationists have no
indefeasible right to continue in borrowing
department - Appointment not cancelled, only
repatriation to parent cadre - No violation of
natural justice - Fundamental duty under Article
21-A (Right to Education) requires teachers to
return to teaching duties - Repatriation order
upheld.

Held: Deputation is temporary by nature; no
vested right accrues to continue in the
borrowing department. Petitioners, Assistant
Teachers appointed as District Coordinators on
deputation, had completed more than 4-5
years. In view of G.O. dated 26.05.2003, their
repatriation to parent department is valid,
justified, and not violative of natural justice.
Distinction
between
"appointment
on
deputation"
and
"transfer
on
deputation"
discussed. Petitioners cannot claim continuance
as of right. Writ Petitions dismissed; interim
orders vacated.

List of Cases cited:

1. Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs U.O.I.(2012) 7
SCC 757

2. Kunal Nanda Vs U.O.I.(2000) 5 SCC 362

3. Mahesh Chandra Gautam Vs St. of U.P. 2005
SCC OnLine All 563

4. Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs St. of U.P. 2024 SCC
OnLine All 2326

5. D.K. Yadav Vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3
SCC 259
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. These are the bunch of writ
petitions, wherein Sri Sharad Pathak and
Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey have argued on
behalf of the petitioners, Sri Pradeep
Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf
of the State-opposite parties and Sri Sanjay
Basin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Sarvesh Dubey and Shobhit Mohan
Shukla for opposite party No.2.

2. In the aforesaid bunch of writ
petitions the grievance of all the petitioners
is one and the same, therefore, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties
all the writ petitions have been connected
and are being decided by a common
judgment. However, the leading writ
petition would be Writ-A No.6157 of 2024
(Shashank Sachan vs. State of U.P. and
others), so the facts of the case have been
taken from the aforesaid leading writ
petition.

3. The petitioners of the aforesaid
writ
petitions
have
challenged
the
impugned repatriation order whereby they
have been repatriated to their parent
department and they have also challenged
the consequential relieving orders. Notably,
on the first date of admission, the interim
order has been granted by this Court.

4. The question involved in this
bunch of writ petitions is that as to whether
the deputationists have got any indefeasible
right to be retained in their borrowing
department when they are fully aware that
their
appointment
to
the
borrowing
department has been done on deputation
basis; they are being paid their salary etc.
from their parent department and they are
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintaining their lien in their parent
department. Another question in the bunch
of writ petitions is that as to whether the
deputationists can be retained in their
parent department permanently.

5.
The
brief
facts
and
circumstances of the present case is that the
petitioners have been appointed on the post
of
Assistant
Teachers
in
the
Basic
Education Department since 2007 onwards,
as
the
case
may
be.
After
their
appointment, the petitioners have started
discharging their respective duties on the
post of Assistant Teacher at various schools
governed and controlled by the Basic
Education Department. On 21.12.2019, an
advertisement was published on official
website
for
making
selection
and
appointment
of
District
Coordinators.
Thereafter, a letter was issued by the State
Project
Director,
Lucknow,
U.P.
on
30.12.2019 to all the District Basic
Educaiton
Officers
with
respect
to
appointment of District Coordinators by
way of selection amongst the Assistant
Teachers working in the school run by U.P.
Basic Shiksha Parishad.

6. On 23.01.2020, the State Project
Director wrote a letter to all the District
Basic Education Officers of the State of
U.P. prescribing the eligibility criteria for
Online examination for the post of District
Coordinator fixing the date of examination
for 27.01.2020 granting duty leave for
27.01.2020 to the Assistant Teachers who
would be participating in such examination.
In the aforesaid letter, it has been
categorically
indicated
that
these
appointments would be made on deputation
basis. Therefore, it is clear that before the
date of examination all the participants
have been made aware that if they are
selected
and
appointed
as
District
Coordinators their appointment would be
on deputation basis.

7. It has been informed by learned
counsel for the parties that pursuant to the
aforesaid selection process more than 5000
candidates
participated
in
Online
examination and the petitioners of the
present bunch of writ petitions have been
declared successful. The State Project
Director issued a letter dated 19.03.2020 to
the selected candidates for joining on the
post of District Coordinator at their
respective districts. In the aforesaid letter
dated 19.03.2020, it has been categorically
indicated that the aforesaid appointment
would be purely on deputation basis; the
appointees would be getting their salary
etc. from their parent department and their
lien shall be maintained with their parent
department. Therefore, it is clear that
before submitting their joining on the post
of District Coordinator the selectees/
appointees were made aware about the
nature of appointment and after knowing
the aforesaid information the petitioners
submitted their joining on the post of
District Coordinator at various districts.

8.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted that in the letter
of appointment the period of deputation has
not been indicated. Further, till date no
fresh recruitment has been made on the
post of District Coordinator though the
decision has now been taken to fill-up the
post of District Coordinators in various
districts
through
outsourcing.
The
impugned order dated 01.07.2024 has been
issued by the State Project Director
repatriating the petitioners to their parent
department in the light of the Government
Order
bearing
No.1/1/95[1]-Ka-4-2003
dated 26.05.2003 indicating therein that
since the period of deputation of the
5 All. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
489
petitioners have been completed for more
than
04
years,
therefore,
they
are
repatriated to their parent department. In
compliance of the impugned order dated
01.07.2024, the relieving order dated
02.07.2024 has been issued by the District
Basic Education Officer. Notably, both the
aforesaid impugned orders have been
stayed by this Court vide order dated
08.08.2024 and the interim order is still
existing.

9.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
has
submitted
that
the
Government Order dated 26.05.2003 is
related to the State government employees
whereas
the
present
petitioners
are
discharging their duties under one project
in the name of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.
Therefore, the aforesaid Government Order
would not be applicable on the petitioners.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has further submitted that all the
District
Coordinators
have
not
been
repatriated to their parent department but
by adopting the pick and choose policy
without having any cogent reason to that
effect only the petitioners have been
repatriated to their parent department.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has placed reliance upon the dictum of Apex
Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar
Ratilal Patel vs. Union of India and another
reported in (2012) 7 SCC 757 to submit that
the petitioners have been appointed on
deputation by way of selection, so their
appointment can be interfered with only on the
ground of unsuitability or unsatisfactory work.
However, in the impugned order nothing has
been indicated regarding unsuitability or
unsatisfactory work of the petitioners but they
have been repatriated pursuant to the
Government Order dated 26.05.2003.
12.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has stated that the Apex Court in
the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel
(supra) has held vide para-14 that there is
difference
between
'Appointment
on
Deputation' and 'Transfer on Deputation'
and
who
have
been
transferred
on
deputation have got no right to be retained
in the borrowing department but who have
been
appointed
on
deputation,
their
appointment may not be cancelled except
on the ground of non-suitability or
unsatisfactory work.

13. On being put a pin point query
as to whether the appointment of the
petitioners has been cancelled or they have
been repatriated to their parent department,
learned counsel for the petitioners has stated
that the petitioners have been repatriated to
their parent department. So learned counsel
for the petitioners have again been confronted
as to how the direction of Apex Court issued
in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel
(supra) would be applicable in the present
case inasmuch as the appointment of
selectees on deputation was cancelled in the
case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra),
whereas the appointment of the petitioners
has not been cancelled, rather they have been
repatriated to their parent department, learned
counsel for the petitioners could not explain
the aforesaid query properly. On being
further confronted on the point as to whether
repatriating the petitioners to their parent
department would be treated as cancellation
of their appointment when they were made
aware about the fact that their appointment
as District Coordinator would be on
deputation basis; they would be getting their
salary etc. from their parent department and
their lien would be maintained their parent
department,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners could not explain the aforesaid
query properly.
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. Per contra, Sri Sanjay Bhasin,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Sarvesh Dubey and Sri Shobhit Mohan
Shukla as well as learned counsels for the
respective
District
Basic
Education
Officers have submitted that the petitioners
being deputationists have got no indefeasible
right to be retained at their borrowing
department permanently when they are
getting their salary etc. from their parent
department and their lien is maintained at
their permanent department. They have
further submitted that there must be an end of
deputation appointment and even if no
specific period is prescribed in their
appointment letter even then they can be
repatriated to their parent department by the
Competent Authority of the borrowing
department or the parent department. The
Government Order dated 26.05.2003 would
be applicable on the present petitioners as it is
related to all the government employees
including the petitioners, who are Assistant
Teachers in the Basic Education Department.
As per the Government Order dated
26.05.2003, the deputationists can be retained
at the borrowing department to the maximum
period of three years and after completion of
three years period, he may be repatriated to
their parent department. This Government
Order
further
provides
that
in
any
circumstances after completing the period of
five years the deputationists shall be
repatriated to their parent department and the
direction of this Government Order would be
abided by strictly. Most of the petitioners
have submitted their joining on deputation
post i.e. the District Coordinator in the month
of March, 2020, therefore, as on today, they
have completed more than five years of
service as District Coordinator. Some of the
petitioners may be completing the five years
period, but undisputedly all the petitioners
have completed more than three years of
service on deputation post.
15. Therefore, learned counsels for
the opposite parties have submitted with
vehemence that the prayer in the writ
petitions seeking direction to the effect that
the petitioners be allowed to work on the
post of District Coordinator and they be not
relieved from that post pursuant to the
impugned orders dated 01.07.2024 and
02.07.2024 (Annexure Nos.1 and 2) quashing
the aforesaid orders, is misconceived. They
have further submitted that the law on
deputation is very clear to the effect that the
deputationists have got no indefeasible right
to be retained at borrowing department
permanently and the judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in re: Ashok Kumar Ratilal
Patel (supra) would not be applicable in the
present case. In support of the aforesaid
submission, learned counsels for the opposite
parties have placed reliance on the dictum of
Apex Court rendered in re: Kunal Nanda vs.
Union of India and anther reported in
(2000) 5 SCC 362, the dictum of this Court
rendered in re: Mahesh Chandra Gautam vs.
State of U.P. & others reported in 2005 SCC
OnLine All 563 and the dictum of Apex
Court rendered in re: Dinesh Kumar Singh
vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2024
SCC OnLine All 2326.

16.
Disputing
the
aforesaid
contentions of learned counsel for the
opposite parties, learned counsels for the
opposite parties have also cited the
judgment of Apex Court rendered in re:
D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
reported in (1993) 3 SCC 259 referring
para-9 wherein the Apex Court has held
that no decision must be taken which will
affect the right of any person without first
being informed of the case and giving him/
her an opportunity of putting forward his/
her
case.
An
order
involving
civil
consequences must be made consistently
with the rules of natural justice.
5 All. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
491
17. Learned counsels for the
opposite parties have stated that the
aforesaid judgment of Apex Court in re:
D.K.
Yadav
(supra)
would
not
be
applicable in the present case inasmuch as
the petitioners were fully aware about their
nature of appointment as submitted above.
Therefore, the plea of natural justice may
not be taken in the present case. They have
also stated that even the judgment in re:
Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) is not
supporting the facts of the present case,
rather this case too is supporting the
contentions
of
the
opposite
parties.
Therefore,
learned
counsels
for
the
opposite parties have submitted that the
present writ petition and its bunch of writ
petitions may be dismissed with cost.

18. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
material available on record, I am also of
the
considered
opinion
that
the
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.

19. Since the Government Order
dated 26.05.2003 has been issued by the
Chief Secretary, Government of U.P.
addressing to all the Principal Secretaries/
Secretaries of all concerns of the State of
U.P.
indicating
therein
that
the
deputationists may be permitted to be
continued at the borrowing department upto
three years, thereafter, they may be
repatriated and after completion of a period
of five years as deputationists, they shall be
repatriated in all the circumstances. So the
impugned order is purely justifiable in view
of the settled proportion of law as well as
the same is in-conformity with the
Government
Order
dated
26.05.2003,
which is very much applicable in the
present case as the petitioners are originally
the Assistant Teachers serving in the Basic
Education Department.

20. It would not be out of place to
mention
here
that
pursuant
to
the
Constitution
(Eighty-sixth
Amendment)
Act, 2002 dated 01.04.2010 Right to
Education (Article 21-A) has been inserted
under Chapter-III of the Constitution of
India which defines Fundamental Rights.
Article 21-A of the Constitution of India
reads as under:-

"Article
21-A.
Right
to
Education. The State shall provide free and
compulsory education to all children of the
age of six to fourteen years in such manner
as the State may, by law, determine."

21. So the free and compulsory
education under Article 21-A would be
provided
by
the
Basic
Education
Department to the children, under the
aforesaid Article having age from 6 years
to 14 years. The petitioners have initially
been appointed as Assistant Teachers in the
Basic Education Department so their
primary duty is to impart education to the
children having age between 6 to 14 years.
The repatriation of the petitioners to their
parent department appears to be purposeful
inasmuch
as
if
the
petitioners
are
repatriated to their parent department i.e.
the Basic Education Department, they
would impart teaching to the students
having age of 6 to 14 years. The petitioners
may not claim that instead of imparting
teaching to those children, they would
discharge the duty of Coordinator which
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has nothing to do with imparting education
to the children within the age of 6 to 14
years. No employee can deny their basic
duty and responsibility, for that, he/ she has
been initially appointed. More so, when the
children studying in Primary Schools are
having their fundamental right i.e. Right to
Education so the demand of the petitioners
to be retained at the borrowing department
and not be repatriated to their parent
department
i.e
the
Basic
Education
Department, is violative of Article 21-A of
the Constitution of India.

22. The law is trite on the point that
if any act or inaction or omission to any
person/
employee
is
violative
of
fundamental right, the same would be
declared void abnitio and nullity in the eyes
of law, so the grievance of the petitioners
appears to be misconceived and violative of
Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.

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.16,400450-20,900-500-22,400 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 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
5 All. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
493
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."
(emphasis supplied)

25. Paras-6 and 8 of the case in re:
Mahesh Chandra Gautam (supra) read as
under:-
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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 ben 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
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
5 All. Santosh Kumar Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
495
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.
31. No order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 495
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 6705 of 2025

Santosh Kumar Pal ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Malik Juned Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Saumitra Singh

Transfer - Retention Policy - Seizure
Disorder - Non-speaking order - Legality.
Petitioner, a CRPF Constable, challenged
modified transfer order despite being under
treatment for seizure disorder at Prayagraj.
Retention
Policy
(DG
CRPF
Circular
27.09.2022, Clause 7) allows exceptions on
genuine medical grounds. Authorities, while
altering
station
from
Manipur
to
Visakhapatnam, failed to consider medical
documents or reasons, passing a nonspeaking order. Court held that transfer
being an incidence of service is ordinarily
within
employer's domain,
yet
once a
retention policy exists, authorities are bound
to apply their mind to medical claims under
it. Diseases mentioned in the policy are
illustrative,
not
exhaustive.
"Seizure
disorder" is at par or more severe than listed
ailments. Non-application of mind vitiates
transfer order. Matter remitted to authority
to reconsider petitioner's medical case;
meanwhile, impugned transfer order dated
07.05.2025 quashed.

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357