Vijayendra Pal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is substantively holding the post of Assistant Engineer in the Rural Engineering Services Department. After following the prescribed selection process and interview, the petitioner was selected for appointment on deputation on the post of General Manager in respondent No.2 Corporation and was accordingly appointed vide order dated 29.09.2020. It is further submitted that the initial appointment of petitioner was for a period of two years, with a further provision that subject to satisfactory service, he could continue up to the age of 65 years. The petitioner has discharged his duties sincerely and satisfactorily. However, respondent No.4, with the approval of respondent No.3, issued the impugned order dated 22.12.2025, repatriating the petitioner to his parent Department without assigning any reason. It is further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the terms and conditions of the appointment order and is a non-speaking order. The petitioner was selected through a proper selection process and there is no allegation of any unsatisfactory performance against him. Therefore, his repatriation before completion of the permissible tenure, without assigning any reason, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that reasons are required to be assigned even in administrative orders, particularly when such an order adversely affects the petitioner. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 1 MPLJ 3 and submits that in similar circumstances this Court has also stayed an order of repatriation vide order dated 25.04.2025 passed in W.P. No.14775/2025. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 may be quashed and allowed this petition.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate for respondents opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioner is a deputationist and has no vested or fundamental right to continue on deputation. Deputation is a temporary arrangement and may be brought to an end in accordance with administrative exigencies or at the request of the parent Department. In the present case, the parent Department itself requested repatriation of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order is a simpliciter order of repatriation and neither reduces the rank of the petitioner nor casts any stigma or imposes any adverse civil consequence upon him. Therefore, no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was required before passing the order. Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner's selection and appointment on deputation, or any extension of his deputation, does not create any vested right to continue in the borrowing Department up to the age of 65 years. The petitioner can be repatriated to his parent Department, where he continues to hold his substantive post. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India , (2000) 5 SCC 362, Rameshwar Prasad v. M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. , (1999) 8 SCC 381, State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 372 and Union of India v. Ramakrishnan, (2005) 8 SCC 394, to submit that a deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation and may be repatriated to his parent Department. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is neither arbitrary nor violative of any statutory or fundamental right of the petitioner. The petitioner has misconstrued the terms of his deputation and has failed to establish any ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Nanda (supra) has held as under:

The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. V. Ramakrishnan, (2005) 8 SCC 394 has held as under:

The relevant extract of order dated 29.9.2020 issued by Chief General Manager (Administration), Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Develop Authority Bhopal is quoted below for ready reference and convenience:

The relevant portion of letter written by Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to Chief Executive Officer, Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority, Vikas Bhawan is quoted below for ready reference and convenience:

It is a settled principle of law that a deputationist has no vested or fundamental right to continue on deputation. A deputationist can be repatriated to his parent Department, particularly when no statutory rule has been violated and the order of repatriation is neither arbitrary nor mala fide. The order of repatriation neither reduces the rank of the petitioner nor imposes any stigma or adverse civil consequence upon him. Therefore, no prior notice or opportunity of hearing is required before passing such an order. Deputation is a purely temporary arrangement and is subject to administrative exigencies. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim continuation on deputation as a matter of right. The borrowing Department is competent to repatriate a deputationist whenever administrative exigencies so require, particularly when the parent Department itself seeks his repatriation. The petitioner has misconstrued the terms of his appointment. Mere extension of the period of deputation does not confer any permanent or vested right upon the petitioner to continue on deputation indefinitely or up to the age mentioned in the appointment order. Where the parent Department desires to take back its employee, the deputationist can be repatriated to the parent Department. Since the impugned order is merely an order of repatriation and does not cast any stigma or cause any adverse civil consequence, no interference by this Court is warranted.

The Supreme Court in Kunal Nanda (supra), has clearly held that the basic principle underlying deputation is that the employee can be repatriated to his parent Department at the instance of either Department and that a deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation. The aforesaid principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

1 2 . The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had a right to continue on the post till attaining the age of 65 years, in view of the terms of the order dated 29.09.2020, also cannot be accepted. The record clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Mahaprabandhak purely on Samvida (contractual) basis and such appointment was specifically made for a period of two years and the aforesaid contractual period was already expired on 29.9.2022. The order itself contemplates that the contractual appointment could be extended only in accordance with the prescribed procedure and subject to satisfactory performance and approval of the competent authority. Furthermore, there is no document (agreement/ extension order) on record filed by the petitioner which could explain as to under what terms and conditions his contractual term stood extended further. Thus, the petitioner was never appointed against the said post on a regular or permanent basis. The mere prescription of an age limit or a provision enabling extension of the contractual tenure cannot be construed as conferring an indefeasible right upon the petitioner to continue in service up to the age of 65 years. His right to continue was confined to the contractual tenure and was always subject to the terms and conditions of the Samvida appointment and the decision of the competent authority. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim continuation on the post as a matter of right merely on the ground that he had been permitted to continue beyond the initial period or that his services had earlier been extended.

In the present case, the record shows that the parent Department has requested the respondent-authority to repatriate the petitioner on the ground that there is a shortage of experienced and senior Engineers in the Rural Engineering Services Department and that his services are required there for proper implementation of departmental schemes. Thus, the repatriation of the petitioner is based upon administrative requirement and cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is non-speaking and has been passed without assigning any reason also does not persuade this Court. The impugned order is a simpliciter order of repatriation. It neither casts any stigma upon the petitioner nor reduces his rank or adversely affects his substantive status. The petitioner continues to hold his substantive post of Assistant Engineer in his parent Department. Therefore, the principles of natural justice requiring a prior notice or opportunity of hearing are not attracted in the facts of the present case.

The submission that the petitioner was selected through a prescribed process and that his services were satisfactory also does not create any vested right in his favour to continue on deputation. Similarly, the fact that his deputation was extended from time to time cannot be construed as a promise of continuation up to the age of 65 years. Such continuation remains subject to the terms of the appointment as well as administrative exigencies.

The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India & Ors., 2013 (1) MPLJ 3 , does not assist the petitioner in the facts of the present case. The petitioner has not demonstrated any statutory rule having the force of law which creates an enforceable right in his favour to continue on deputation up to the age of 65 years. On the other hand, the judgment in Kunal Nanda (supra) directly deals with the legal position governing deputation and clearly recognises the right of repatriation to the parent Department.

So far as the order dated 25.04.2025 passed in W.P. No.14775/2025 is concerned, an interim order passed in another case cannot, by itself, confer any legal right upon the petitioner, particularly when the facts and circumstances of the said case have not been shown to be identical to the present case.

Considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to establish any vested or statutory right to continue on deputation. The impugned order dated 22.12.2025 is a simpliciter order of repatriation, passed in the backdrop of the request made by the parent Department and its administrative requirement. No mala fide or violation of any statutory provision has been established.

Consequently, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.