The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a deputationist can be repatriated to his parent department without prior notice or an opportunity of hearing where the order does not cast any stigma or impose any adverse civil consequence. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 393]

The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed,

"A deputationist can be repatriated to his parent Department, particularly when no statutory rule has been violated and the order of repatriation is neither arbitrary nor mala fide. The order of repatriation neither reduces the rank of the petitioner nor imposes any stigma or adverse civil consequence upon him. Therefore, no prior notice or opportunity of hearing is required before passing such an order".

The petitioner was substantively holding the post of Assistant Engineer in Rural Engineering Services Department. After undergoing the prescribed selection process and interview, he was appointed on deputation as General Manager in MP Rural Road Development Corporation through the order of September 29, 2020.

The appointment was initially for two years. The order contemplated extension of the contractual appointment, subject to satisfactory performance, prescribed procedure, and approval of the competent authority, potentially up to the age of 65 years.

The petitioner claimed that he had discharged his duties satisfactorily and had been permitted to continue beyond the initial period. However, on December 22, 2025, the authorities passed an order repatriating him to his parent department without assigning reasons.

The petitioner challenged the order before the High Court, contending that his repatriation before completion of permissible tenure was arbitrary and contrary to the terms of his appointment.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that his appointment had followed a proper selection process and there was no allegation of unsatisfactory performance against him. It was submitted that the repatriation order was a non-speaking order and that administrative authorities were required to provide reasons, particularly where their decision adversely affected the employee.

The counsel for the State argued that the petitioner, being a deputationist, had no vested right to continue in the borrowing department. It was submitted that deputation is a temporary arrangement which can be brought to an end in accordance with administrative exigencies or at the instance of the parent department.

The counsel for the State further argued that the impugned order was merely an order of repatriation and neither reduced the petitioner's rank nor cast any stigma or imposed any adverse civil consequence upon him.

Referring to the Supreme Court case of Kunal Nanda v Union of India (2000), the bench reiterated that the deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department. Further, the bench referred to the case of Union of India v V. Ramakrishnan, (2005), wherein it was stated that a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post.

The bench further examined the order of September 29, 2020, issued by the Chief General Manager (Administration) and the letter written by the Chief Engineer.

The bench emphasized that a deputationist has no vested or fundamental right to continue on deputation. The bench further highlighted,

"Deputation is a purely temporary arrangement and is subject to administrative exigencies. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim continuation on deputation as a matter of right. The borrowing Department is competent to repatriate a deputationist whenever administrative exigencies so require, particularly when the parent Department itself seeks his repatriation".

The bench noted that the petitioner had 'misconstrued' the terms of his appointment. The bench further emphasized,

"Mere extension of the period of deputation does not confer any permanent or vested right upon the petitioner to continue on deputation indefinitely or up to the age mentioned in the appointment order. Where the parent Department desires to take back its employee, the deputationist can be repatriated to the parent Department".

Thus, the bench held that the impugned order was merely an order of repatriation and did not cast a stigma or cause any adverse civil consequences.

The bench further noted that the parent department had requested the authority to repatriate the petitioner as they had a shortage of experienced and senior Engineers. The court noted that the repatriation of the petitioner was due to administrative requirements and cannot be said to be arbitrary.

Accordingly, the bench dismissed the petition.