UMAPATI CHOUDHARY versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 14-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UMAPATICHOUbHARY 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
MAY 14, 1999 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. MOHAPATRA AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW-Deputation-Concept of-It is consensual-It involves 
a voluntary decision of employer to lend services of his employee and a 
C 
corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer- . 
. 
. 
Consent of employee to go on deputation also required-Parent department, 
"the borrowing authority and deputationist, had all given their consent for 
deputation and his permanent absorption-No material that deputation was 
not in public interest or vitiated by favouritism or mala fide-Since 1981, 
D deputationist holding the post-He retired in '1996-Held, deputationist 
shall be treated to be a permanent employee of the borrowing department 
- on the date of his retirement. 
The appellant, a lecturer in Post Graduate department of the University 
of Bihar was deputed as Controller of Examinations of the Bihar Sanskrit 
E Shiksha Board constituted und.er the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 
1981. The University, the parent department, the Board, the borrowing 
authority and the appellant the deputationist, had all given their consent for 
deputation of the appellant and for his permanent absorption in the 
establishment of the borrowing authority. The Government of Bihar in the 
F 
Department of Education by a notification authorised the appellant to discharge 
all the duties and responsibilities of the Controller of Examinations. 
Appreciating his efficiency and the hard work put in by the appellant, the 
Board took the decision for his confirmation and consent of the University 
for permanent absorption of the appellant on the post of Controller of 
Examinatfons was communicated. Thereafter the appellant was appointed as 
G Controller of Examinations under the Board. 
Some employees of the Universities challenged the deputation of the 
appellant as Controller of Examinations of the Board, in a writ petition. The 
High Court directed the State Government to make substantive appointment 
in that post as the appellant had been given a temporary appointment. The 
H appellant was communicated with the order of the Chairman of the Board 
752 
UMAPATI CHAUDHARYv. STATE 
753 
terminating his service with immediate effect in anticipation of approval of A 
the Government. The decision of the Board to terminate the service of the 
appellant was approved by the State Government. These orders were 
challenged by a writ petition. This Court by an interim order directed that 
the appellant be reinstated as Controller of Examinations. The appellant 
.continued on the post and retired from that post in 1996. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment ofan 
employee (deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation 
(parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or C 
organisation (borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation 
arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept 
of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer 
to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such 
services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the 
employee to go on deputation or not. In the case at hand all the three D 
conditions were fulfilled. The University, the parent department, the Board, 
the borrowing authority and the appellant the deputationist, had all given 
their consent for deputation of the appellant and for his permanent absorptlon 
in the establishment of borrowing authority. There is no material to show 
that the deputation of the appellant was not in public interest or it was vitiated E 
by favouritism or mala fide. Since 1981 the appellant was boldlng the post 
of Controller of Examinations of the Board. Initially and thereafter taking 
into account his efficiency and sincerity in the job the Board sought 
permission of the University for regularising his service on that post and 
sent its recommendation to the State Government. The University also had 
communicated its consent (no objection) for permanent absorption of the F 
appellant on the post of Controller of Examinations of the Board. Thereafter 
the appointment to the post was to be made by the Board and the Board had 
decided to regularise the service of the appellant in the said post. However, 
th& Board sought permiss

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.