Repatriation is unsustainable where the original posting order contains no indication of deputation.

The petitioner, a Lecturer (Sanskrit), was originally posted at Government High School, Balaji Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg.

By order dated 30 December 2020, issued on administrative grounds, he was transferred along with other employees to the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Durg (Achhoti), where he continued to work as Lecturer (Sanskrit).

The order dated 30 December 2020 did not describe the posting as deputation or contain any indication that it was temporary.

Subsequently, by order dated 3 September 2026, the State Government treated the petitioner’s posting at DIET as deputation and repatriated him to Government Higher Secondary School, Deori, District Durg.

The petitioner challenged the repatriation order, contending that his 2020 posting was a transfer and not a deputation.

The State submitted that the word “deputation” had inadvertently been omitted from the 2020 order.

Whether the petitioner’s posting at DIET Durg pursuant to the order dated 30 December 2020 was a transfer or a deputation posting?

Whether the State Government could repatriate the petitioner to his earlier place of posting by treating the 2020 transfer order as an order of deputation?

The Court applied the principle that the nature and legal effect of a government posting must be determined from the language and substance of the order itself.

A transfer order cannot subsequently be treated as a deputation order merely on the basis of an administrative assertion that the omission of the word “deputation” was inadvertent.

Where the order contains no indication of deputation and expressly records a transfer on administrative grounds, the authority must act consistently with that order.

Any fresh administrative action must nevertheless be taken in accordance with law.

The Court examined the order dated 30 December 2020 and found that it transferred the petitioner, along with 23 other employees, from his existing school to DIET Durg on administrative grounds.

The order contained nothing suggesting that the petitioner was sent on deputation, nor did it indicate that the posting was temporary or subject to repatriation.

Consequently, the State’s explanation that “deputation” had been inadvertently omitted created a material discrepancy between the original order and the later repatriation order.

Since the impugned order was founded on treating the 2020 posting as deputation, that premise could not be sustained on the face of the original order.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3 September 2026 was quashed to the extent that it repatriated the petitioner to Government Higher Secondary School, Deori.

The respondents were granted liberty to pass an appropriate fresh order in accordance with law.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent.