A teacher appointed temporarily on deputation as District Coordinator (Girls Education) challenged his repatriation order to his parent school. The court held temporary deputation confers no vested right to continue, especially after a policy change to outsourcing, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RESERVED AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT – A No. -11824 of 2025
Akhilesh Kumar Mishra …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. And 2 …..Respondents(s) Others Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shivendra Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh
Court No. -52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned office notification dated 06.08.2025 issued by the State Project Director, Uttar Pradesh Education for all Project Board whereby the petitioner has been repatriated to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Hashkheda, Block- Machhrehta, District- Sitapur and further District Basic Education Officer, Aligarh has also been directed to relieve the petitioner to his original school at Sitapur.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of petitioner on the post of District Co-ordinator (Girls Education) at Project Director Office, Education for all, District Aligarh.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Basic Education Officer, Aligarh, not to relieve the petitioner from
2
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
the post of District Coordinator (Girls Education) at Project Director Office, Education for all, District Aligarh, on the basis of impugned order dated 06.08.2025 issued by the State Project Director, Uttar Pradesh Education for all Project Board."
3
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
apply from the date of issuance i.e., 29.08.2022, meaning thereby the vacancies of District Coordinators as on 29.08.2022 has been directed to be filled up through outsourcing. As such it cannot include the vacancies on which District Coordinators like the petitioner were already working prior to his illegal removal from the post of District Coordinator at District- Aligarh.
4
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
“In Paragraph No.6 deals with the terms and conditions for deputation has been given in which the period of deputation is of one year and extendable for a total period not exceeding 3 years on yearly basis and further in paragraph No.13 deals with the transfers on deputation which are ordinarily made as against equivalent post from one cadre to another and in paragraph No.14 deals with appointment (Recruitment) on deputation. A person who applies for appointment on deputation has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally and once 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 and also in paragraph No.15 the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that the present case is not a case of transfer on deputation it is a case of appointment on deputation for which advertisement was issued after due selection, the offer of appointment was issued in favour of the appellant and the respondents cannot refuse to accept the joining of most eligible selected candidate except on ground of unsuitability and unsatisfactory performance. The present case of the
5
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
petitioner is at more better footing for the reason that there is no specified period of time as either provided in the notification/advertisement dated 21.12.2019 nor provided in the appointment order dated 28.07.2020, therefore petitioner shall continue to hold the post of District Coordinator at Aligarh subject to suitability and satisfactory performance.”
(ii) The Apex Court in the case of State of Orrisa Vs. Orissa Khadi & Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh & Another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC (28), has held:-
“The employees of the Board cannot be at par with the employees of State Government for all purposes.”
6
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
Coordinator (Community Involvement) and District Coordinator (Girls Education).
“Section 24 in The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.24. Duties of teachers and redressal of grievances.
7
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
(1) A teacher appointed under sub-section (1) of section 23 shall perform the following duties, namely:-
(a) maintain regularity and punctuality in attending school;
(b) conduct and complete the curriculum in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 29;
(c) complete entire curriculum within the specified time;
(d) assess the learning ability of each child and accordingly supplement additional instructions, if any, as required;
(e) hold regular meetings with parents and guardians and apprise them about the regularity in attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning and any other relevant information about the child; and
(f) perform such other duties as may be prescribed.
(2) A teacher committing default in performance of duties specified in sub-section (1), shall be liable to disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to him or her:Provided that before taking such disciplinary action, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to such teacher.
(3) The grievances, if any, of the teacher shall be redressed in such manner as may be prescribed.”
21 . As per Rule 27 of the 1981 Rules, the primary duty of the Teacher is to teach in his school and complete the prescribed curriculum. The Rule 27 of the 1981 Rules is being quoted herein below:-
“27. Prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational No Teacher shall be owned, controlled or substantially purpose. financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government or by a local authority, shall ensure that vacancy of teacher in a School under its control shall not exceed then per cent, of the total sanctioned strength.
8
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
of his period, if any, mentioned in the deputation order and no relief can be claimed in teeth of Section 24 of RTE Act, 2009 r/w Rule 27 of 1981 Rules.
"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. 16,400-450-20,900500-22,400 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."
9
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
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
10
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
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."
11
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
held that incumbent who had which has been 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)
12
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
any benefit from the judgment of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) in the present case.
“As prayed on behalf of Shri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, arguing counsel for opposite party, list this case tomorrow, i.e., 06.06.2025 as fresh. Interim orders, which are operating in writ petitions, shall continue to operate till tomorrow. Order Date:- 5.6.2025.”
13
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
were operating in the writ petitions was directed to continue to operate. In the present writ petition, there is no interim order and the petitioner has deliberately disobeyed the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 by which the petitioner had been repatriated to his original post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School Hans Khera, Macharhata, District Sitapur and therefore, the petitioner by failing to join as Assistant Teacher, in violation of Section 24 of the R.T.E. Act, 2009 and Rule 27 of 1981 Rules has caused serious academic loss to the students of the said school. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief from this Hon'ble Court.
14
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
is meant to exist, operate, or continue for a limited duration or until the happening of a specified event.
15
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
does not create any lien or vested right to absorption in the borrowing department.
16
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
department is only for a limited duration unless absorbed with due approval.
17
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
administrative convenience and does not confer any vested right upon the deputationist to continue or to claim absorption in the borrowing department.
18
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
organization on a deputation basis. Such an appointment does not confer permanent rights in the borrowing department, as the lien continues to remain with the parent cadre. However, for the duration of deputation, the employee holds the status of an appointee in the deputed post, subject to the terms and conditions of deputation. It has been judicially recognized that deputation by appointment partakes of the character of a fresh appointment, albeit temporary in nature.
19
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
20
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
incumbent cannot be permitted to assert any right of continuance once the purpose of deputation stands exhausted.
(i) District Coordinator (Training),
(ii) District Coordinator (Community Involvement),
(iii) District Coordinator (Samudayik Sahbhagita)
(iv) District Coordinator (Girls Education)
The eligibility criteria required a minimum 55% of marks in postgraduation from a recognized university. The candidates having MBA/M.Ed/P.hD Degree from recognized universities were to given preference.
21
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
transfer or by way of their appointment. It is a temporary arrangement and the person cannot claim any lien over the said post and can be reverted back of his parent department as and when required. The incumbent cannot permitted to assert any right of continuance once the purpose of deputation stands exhausted.
22
Writ A No.11824 of 20258
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. The Court has further observed that 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.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
October, 14, 2025 Rahul Goswami
Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a District Coordinator appointed temporarily on deputation by selection, without any specified period, has a right to continue on the deputation post.
Whether the impugned repatriation order dated 06.08.2025 issued following a policy change to outsourcing was illegal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Pushpa SrivastavaRelied on¶30
(1992) 4 SCC 33 · Who else cites this
Kunal Nanda v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶33
(2000) 5 SCC 362 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab v. Inder SinghRelied on¶34
(1997) 8 SCC 372 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. S.N. MaityRelied on¶35
(2015) 4 SCC 164 · Who else cites this
Rameshwar Prasad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.Relied on¶46
(1999) 8 SCC 381 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Maurya vs. State of U.P.Followed¶65
Neutral Citation:2025:AHC-LKO:30734
Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India & AnotherDistinguished¶65
(2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 757
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Akhilesh Kumar Mishra
State of U.P.
Respondent No. 2 (State Project Director, Uttar Pradesh Education for All Project Board)
District Basic Education Officer, Aligarh (BSA)
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
