Sunil Bhatt vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 24.4.2014 whereby in exercise of power u/s 22 of the Adhiniyam, the petitioner is attached to the Library Department and examination work is taken away from him. Assailing this order, it is urged that the petitioner was brought on the said post by State Government and only State Government can remove him from the said work. In addition, Annexures P-2 and P-3 dated 28.4.2014 and 30.4.2014 are challenged whereby the borrowing authority has requested to repatriate the petitioner and relieve him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of order Annexure P-5, the impugned order is bad in law.

Prayer is opposed by the other side.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Annexure P-5 makes it clear that petitioner was temporarily given charge of examination work till further orders. Section 22(xii) and (xiii) of Raja Man Singh Tomar Sangit Evam Kala Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 2009 which gives power to Academic Council reads as under:-

(xii) to make arrangement for the conduct of examination and to fix dates for holdings them;

(xiii) to declare the result of the various examinations or to, appoint committees or officers to do so, and to make recommendations regarding the conferment of grant of degrees, honours, diplomas, licenses, titles and marks of honours;

In the impugned order it is stated that there was irregularity in the examination and, therefore, it was decided to attach the petitioner in the Library Department. In the opinion of this Court, the said power can be exercised by the Academic Council u/s 22. Conducting examination means conducting fair examination. Thus, Academic Council is well within its powers to make necessary administrative arrangements and ensure free and transparent examination. Petitioner has no legal, vested, statutory or constitutional right to remain posted as Examination Incharge. His substantive post is Assistant Professor Music. Considering the aforesaid, I am unable to hold that there is any irregularity or illegality in passing the order Annexure P-1.

So far Annexure P-2 and P-3 are concerned, no one has a vested right to remain on deputation. The borrowing department has a right to request the parent department to repatriate the employee under deputation. In other words, if borrowing department does not require the services of the deputationist or is not happy with his services, he can be repatriated. The Supreme Court in Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and Another, , the Apex Court has held as under:-

A deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department, at the instance of either borrowing department or parent department.

Considering the aforesaid, I am unable to hold that there is any legal flaw in the order dated 28.4.2014 and 30.4.2014. Deputationist has no right to continue on deputation as per his wish. In absence of showing any legal right to continue, I find no reason to interfere in this petition.

Petition is merit-less and is hereby dismissed.