Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SEEMA GAUTAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Seema Gautam v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 33535 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12954 (26 July 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.  33535  of   2007

Smt. Seema Gautam  ...........................................................    Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh & others   ...............................          Respondents

....................................

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.  Sri K. S. Kushwaha appears for the respondents no. 2 and 3. Sri D.K. Rai has appeared for the respondent no. 4.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 13th of July, 2007 and 18th of May, 2007.  The petitioner was working in the Department of Basic Education.    The petitioner was sent on deputation by order dated 5.5.2000. By order dated 18.5.2007 the petitioner was  repatriated to her parent department against which order the petitioner filed writ petition No. 3255 of 2007 which was disposed of by this Court on 4.6.2007 directing consideration of the petitioner's representation. The representation of the petitioner  has been considered by the Director,  Rajya  Pariyojana  and rejected.  The representation has been decided  taking the view that the petitioner being only on deputation and her deputation  cannot be extended  more than five years in accordance with  Government order  dated 19.1.1988.  In so far as personal difficulty of the petitioner is concerned,  it was observed that it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to her parent department  for her posting accordingly.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the petitioner's deputation  was  extended  upto 31st  of  March, 2008 by order dated  23.3.2007 which has been cancelled.  Several other persons whose deputation has also become for more than five years, are working on deputation but the petitioner has been   repatriated to parent department.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The petitioner being only deputanist, she has no right to continue on the deputation post.  The petitioner was taken on deputation under the Scheme for  " Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan " and it is for the Department to consider that the deputanist is to be recalled or not.  Reference of  Government order dated  19.1.1988  has also been made which provided that the maximum deputation admissible is of five years. The mere fact that the earlier decision was taken  to extend the period of deputation was not  an impediment in repatriating the petitioner to her parent department.  The deputanist has no right to continue on the post . No ground is made out on which the  repatriation order of the petitioner can be interfered with.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

D/-26.7.2007

SCS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.