The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, who had challenged his repatriation from the post of District Coordinator (Girls Education), Aligarh, to his original position as Assistant Teacher in Sitapur district. The judgment, authored by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, reaffirmed that a deputationist has no vested right to continue in a borrowed post once the government decides to recall them.
The court’s decision, reserved earlier and delivered on October 14, 2025, carries implications for hundreds of teachers working on deputation under the “Education for All” project in Uttar Pradesh.
Background
Mishra’s troubles began after an office order dated August 6, 2025, issued by the State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, directed his return to the parent department. The move was based on the government’s new policy to fill such coordinator posts through outsourcing, rather than deputation.
Mishra, represented by advocate Seemant Singh, argued that his appointment as District Coordinator in 2020 was not merely a deputation but an appointment through selection, and therefore, he should be allowed to continue. “There was no fixed tenure in my appointment order,” his counsel told the court. The defense maintained that the government order of May 26, 2003—limiting deputations to five years—did not apply to Basic Education Board employees.
The State, represented by counsels Shivendra Kumar Singh and Hari Narayan Singh, countered that Mishra was only temporarily deputed, not permanently appointed. His salary was still being drawn from the Basic Education Board, and his lien remained in Sitapur. “A deputationist can be called back anytime. There’s no legal right to remain,” the State argued.
Court’s Observations
Justice Chauhan began by interpreting key terms like temporary, deputation, and temporary appointment on deputation, explaining them in clear legal yet accessible language. The court observed that a deputation is inherently temporary and terminable, meant only for administrative convenience.
“A deputationist continues to hold a lien in the parent department. His placement elsewhere is merely a temporary arrangement,” the bench noted, citing precedents including Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India (2000) and Inder Singh vs. State of Punjab (1997).
The court also referred to a previous ruling in Shashank Sachan vs. State of U.P. (2025), where a coordinate bench held that deputationists have no indefeasible right to continue and may be recalled even before their tenure ends.
In a sharp remark, the judge observed,
“Deputation is not a right but a privilege extended by the government. Continuance depends on administrative necessity, not individual desire.”
She emphasized that Section 24 of the Right to Education Act (2009) and Rule 27 of the 1981 Rules make teaching the primary duty of government school teachers. By remaining away from his classroom, the petitioner was “causing academic loss to the students,” the State had argued—a point the court appeared to endorse.
The bench also dismissed Mishra’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel ruling, clarifying that it applied to appointments by deputation to a lower post, which was not the case here.
After an exhaustive discussion on the meaning of deputation, the Court held that Mishra’s appointment was indeed temporary and terminable at will. Justice Chauhan concluded that the policy change of 2022—to appoint district coordinators through outsourcing—was within the government’s administrative discretion.
“With the changing recruitment policy, the petitioner, being an Assistant Teacher, cannot claim any right to continue as District Coordinator,” the Court ruled.
Citing the Satendra Kumar Maurya vs. State of U.P. case decided earlier this year, the judge reaffirmed that a deputationist’s lien remains in the parent department and their continuation elsewhere depends solely on administrative convenience.
Finally, dismissing the writ petition.
Case Title: Akhilesh Kumar Mishra vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others
Case Number: Writ - A No. 11824 of 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Shivendra Kumar Singh (C.S.C.), Mr. Hari Narayan Singh (for Respondent No. 3 / Basic Shiksha Adhikari), Learned Standing Counsel (for the State)