@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashPetitioner was working as Senior Assistant in Sri Nettikanti Anjaneya Swamyvari Devasthanam, Kasapuram Village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District, fourth Respondent. On a request made by him, the Commissioner of Endowments transferred him together with service to Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamyvari Devasthanam, Kanipakam, third Respondent, vide proceedings, dated 31.05.2007. It is stated that after the transfer, the Petitioner was promoted as Superintendent vide proceedings, dated 12.06.2009, in the third Respondent Devasthanam.
2. The Executive Officer of the third Respondent Devasthanam reverted the Petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant through proceedings, dated 10.12.2009, on the ground that such transfer was contrary to the Rules contained in G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08.12.2000. The Petitioner approached the first Respondent by way of representation, dated 11.12.2009, feeling aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 10.12.2009, of the Executive Officer of the third Respondent Devasthanam. The first Respondent passed order, dated 15.12.2009, suspending the said proceedings. This was followed by another order, dated 11.05.2010, through which, the first Respondent directed the second Respondent either to continue the Petitioner in the third Respondent Devasthanam as Superintendent or to re-post him as Superintendent at the fourth Respondent Devasthanam. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct Respondents 2 and 3 to implement the directions issued by the first Respondent.
3. Heard Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 3 and 4.
4. The Petitioner was born on the cadre of the fourth Respondent Devasthanam. It is not uncommon that experience officials of one organization are sent on deputation to another, depending on the need. The request in this regard must, however, emanate from the borrowing department. Orders of deputations are passed by the authority concerned in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Deputation if made shall be for a particular time period and on expiry thereof, the employee will be liable to be repatriated.
5. A perusal of the proceedings, dated 31.05.2007, does not disclose that any request was made by the third Respondent Devasthanam to the second Respondent to send any employee on deputation or on transfer. The proceedings were issued just on a request made by the Petitioner without even consulting the third Respondent Devasthanam. The Petitioner was transferred together with his service once for all, to the third Respondent Devasthanam. The proceedings are said to have been issued in exercise of power u/s 39 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. After such transfer, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent.
6. The matter was examined in detail by the Executive Officer of the third Respondent Devasthanam and on finding that the promotion was not permissible in law, he issued proceedings, dated 10.12.2009, reverting the Petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant. On a representation made by the Petitioner, the first Respondent suspended the said order and further proceedings ensued. Ultimately, the first Respondent also left two options to the second Respondent, namely, either to retain the Petitioner in the third Respondent Devasthanam or to re- post him as Superintendent at his parent organisation i.e. the third Respondent Devasthanam.
7. The Petitioner is under the impression that the directions issued by the first Respondent were not implemented by the second Respondent. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the third Respondent Devasthanam has placed before this Court a copy of proceedings, dated 25.06.2010, issued by the second Respondent. The second option was chosen and the Petitioner is repatriated to his parent organization as Senior Assistant with a specific direction to the Executive Officer of the fourth Respondent Devasthanam to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent in case, a clear vacancy exists and if he is the senior-most Senior Assistant.
8. With this, the grievance of the Petitioner stands substantially redressed. The directions issued by the first Respondent were implemented.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that when the first Respondent specifically directed that the Petitioner be re-posted/repatriated as Superintendent, there was no justification for the Respondents to repatriate the Petitioner as Senior Assistant. It has already been mentioned that the order of transferring the Petitioner from the fourth Respondent to the third Respondent does not fit into any recognised principles of service law, at the most, his posting can be treated as on deputation. It is well settled principle of law that even if an employee sent on deputation earns promotion in the borrowing organization, he shall have to be repatriated in the same capacity in which he was deputed. The question as to whether he is entitled to be promoted in the parent organization shall be considered only after repatriation. This much however, can be said that the service rendered by an employee on deputation shall count towards his seniority. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the proceedings, dated 25.06.2010, issued by the second Respondent.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
