Repatriation of employee from deputation to substantive post upon expiry of prescribed tenure is legally sustainable.

The petitioner, a Lecturer at Government Utkrisht Higher Secondary School, Baikunthpur, was sent on deputation to Swami Atmanand Utkrisht English Medium Vidyalay (SAUEMV), Mahalpara, via order dated 17.12.2020

On 17.10.2022, the state authorities withdrew the deputation order and repatriated the petitioner to his substantive post

The petitioner challenged this withdrawal and obtained an interim stay on 02.12.2022, allowing him to continue as Principal (In-charge)

By the time of the final hearing on 29.04.2026, the petitioner had completed over four years on deputation, leading the State to argue that the petition was now infructuous

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue on deputation at Swami Atmanand Utkrisht English Medium Vidyalay beyond the standard four-year term

2. Whether the Court should interfere with the repatriation order dated 17.10.2022 in light of the expiration of the deputation period

The court primarily considered the State Government's deputation policy, which generally limits the duration of service on deputation

It applied the principle that deputation does not confer a vested right upon the employee to remain in the post indefinitely and that repatriation to a substantive post is a standard administrative action

The court also acknowledged the discretionary power of the State (Respondent No. 1) to grant extensions of deputation based on administrative exigencies

The court noted that while the petitioner challenged the 2022 repatriation order, he had effectively remained in the position for nearly four years due to the interim order granted by the High Court

The State contended that since the four-year deputation period had already expired by efflux of time, the grievance against the initial repatriation was essentially moot

The court reasoned that since the maximum standard term of deputation had been reached, the petitioner could not demand a further stay as a matter of right

However, acknowledging the petitioner's request for continuity, the court found it appropriate to allow the petitioner to seek an administrative extension through a formal representation to the Secretary of the School Education Department rather than adjudicating the merits of the expired term

The Court directed the authority to decide said representation within the same 45-day timeframe and ordered that the interim protection allowing the petitioner to remain in his current post shall subsist for only 45 days from the date of the judgment to facilitate the administrative decision