Borrowing institution cannot withhold an employee after competent authority ends deputation and orders repatriation.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor of Chemistry appointed through the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, joined service on 04.12.2012. He was deputed to Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya, Durg, as Deputy Registrar on 05.10.2018 and continued there for more than seven years.

The State Government, by order dated 14.08.2026, brought the petitioner’s deputation to an end, repatriated him to his parent department, and posted him at Government V.Y.T. Post-Graduate Autonomous College, Durg, with a direction to join within seven days.

Despite the repatriation order and the petitioner’s repeated requests, the University and its Vice-Chancellor did not relieve him, stating that he was holding charge as Examination Controller and that his immediate release could adversely affect the conduct of examinations.

The petitioner consequently filed the writ petition seeking a direction to be relieved and permitted to join at his new place of posting.

Whether respondents Nos. 4 and 5 could withhold the petitioner from being relieved after the competent authority had brought his deputation to an end and ordered his repatriation to the parent department?

Whether the University’s request to the State Government for reconsideration of the repatriation order or for an alternative arrangement justified continuing the petitioner’s deputation?

Once the competent authority validly terminates an employee’s deputation and orders repatriation to the parent department, the borrowing institution is required to relieve the employee in compliance with that order.

Administrative inconvenience, including the need to maintain continuity in a particular office or charge, cannot by itself justify withholding the employee indefinitely after repatriation has been ordered.

The Court did not refer to any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent; its decision was based on the binding nature of the competent authority’s repatriation order and the limits of the borrowing institution’s authority.

The Court noted that the petitioner had remained on deputation for more than seven years and that the State Government had already issued a specific order ending the deputation and posting him to the Government V.Y.T. Post-Graduate Autonomous College, Durg.

Since the repatriation order had been passed by the competent authority, the University was obliged to relieve the petitioner.

The fact that he was holding charge as Examination Controller, and that his release might affect examinations, was treated as an administrative concern that could not override or suspend the repatriation order.

Similarly, the University’s pending request before the State Government for reconsideration or alternative arrangements was held to be an inter se matter between the University and the State Government and did not authorise the University to indefinitely retain the petitioner.

The Court clarified that the University remained free to approach the State Government for an appropriate alternative arrangement concerning the post or charge of Examination Controller, in accordance with law.