IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO.56259 OF 2017 (S-TR) BETWEEN:
Sri. K. Anand Krishna, S/o. Late. K. Manick Shetty, Aged about 57 years, Residing at Gokulam, 1st Stage, 9th Cross, Mysuru – 570 021. ... Petitioner (By Smt. Shilpa Rani, Advocate for Sri. B.L.Vikram Balaji, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka Urban Development, Represented by under Secretary, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Managing Director, Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Department, Bannergatta Road, Jala Bhavana, Bengaluru – 560 029.
3. The Commissioner, Mysuru City Corporation, Sayyajirao Road, Mysuru – 570 001. ... Respondents This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 03.10.2017 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-G and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Aggrieved by the order dated 03-10-2017, passed by the respondent No.3, the Commissioner, Mysuru City Corporation, whereby the petitioner has been repatriated to his parental department, the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Sewage Board, NURM Division, Mysuru (‘the Board’, for short). By order dated 29.09.2014, he was deputed to work as an Assistant Engineer with the Mysore Mahanagara Palike. Thus, he was sent from the parent department to the borrowing department, namely, Mysore Mahanagara Palike as a deputationist. From 2014 till present the petitioner continued to work with the Mysore City Corporation. But by order dated 03.10.2017, the petitioner has been relieved of his post from the Mysuru City Corporation and has been directed to report back to the parent department. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the deputation order dated 29.09.2014, it was made clear that the deputation would be “till further orders”. For the last four years, the petitioner has been working in the Mysuru City Corporation. Despite the fact that vacancy do exists in the cadre of Assistant Engineer with the Mysuru City Corporation, by the impugned order, the petitioner is repatriated to his parental department. Therefore, the impugned order is clearly illegal. Hence, it needs to be set aside by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
5. Needless to say, a deputationist has no lien over the deputation post. His lien continues to be in the post in the parental department. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he has a right to continue with the borrowing department, namely, Mysuru Mahanagara Palike, and he cannot be repatriated back to his parental department.
6. A bare perusal of the deputation order dated 29.09.2014, clearly reveals that the deputation was “till further orders”. The deputation was not having a fixed tenure. Subsequently, a further order has been passed, namely, the order dated 03.10.2017, whereby, the tenure of deputation has come to an end. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot claim that the petitioner has a right to continue in the borrowing department.
7. Merely because vacancy may exist in the borrowing department, petitioner still has no right to continue, in a post to which he has no lien, in the borrowing department. It is for the borrowing department to decide whether to continue with the services of the petitioner or not.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the petition. Hence the petition is, hereby, dismissed.
In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.
SV/-
Sd/- JUDGE