An employee directly posted to an institute cannot be repatriated absent a deputation order.

The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds by the District Education Officer, Durg, on 9 June 2021 and posted as Assistant Grade-03 at DIET, Durg.

He was not posted there on deputation.

By order dated 3 September 2026, the State described his movement from DIET to Government Higher Secondary School, Deori, as a “repatriation”; a consequential relieving order followed on 7 September 2026.

The petitioner challenged both orders, contending that repatriation was impermissible because he had not been deputed to DIET.

Whether the petitioner could be repatriated from DIET when he had not been posted there on deputation

Whether the impugned order could be sustained as a transfer order despite describing the action as repatriation

The Court applied the principle that repatriation presupposes a prior deputation; absent an order posting an employee on deputation, there is no basis to repatriate that employee from the post or institution.

If the authority intended instead to transfer the employee, it must pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The judgment cites no specific statute, transfer-policy clause, or precedent as the basis for these principles.

The petitioner’s appointment order showed that he was appointed on compassionate grounds and posted at DIET, while the record contained no order placing him there on deputation.

Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned order could not validly describe his movement as repatriation.

The State’s submission that “repatriation” was merely a clerical error and that the order was substantively a transfer did not cure the defect: the competent authority was required to issue an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent.

The State remained at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.