( 1 ) HEARD Mr. A. Panduranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Adinarayana Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the second respondent. None appears for the third respondent-Corporation.

( 2 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the resolution Nos. 888 and 260, dated 7/8-12-1994 and 10-5-1995 respectively passed by the first respondent, as illegal, null and void and to quash the same.

( 3 ) THE petitioner while working under the third respondent-Corporation as security Sub-Inspector was posted on deputation with the first respondent on 30-4-] 992 for a period of three years and by proceedings No. C1/ 126/s and VO/tpt/92, dated 16-5-1992 the first respondent appointed the petitioner as Vigilance Inspector. It is submitted that even before completion of the period of deputation, the first respondent absorbed the petitioner in the first respondent establishment to the post of Vigilance and Security Officer Grade-II on 18-11-1992. It is further stated that the Government has permitted the petitioner s absorption in the first respondent establishment on 1-12-1993 before his services were absorbed in the first respondent establishment.

( 4 ) AS the matter rested there, the first respondent has passed the impugned resolutions No. 888 and 260, dated 7/8-12-1994 and 10-5-1995 respectively, which are filed in the material papers at page Nos. 33-35 and 45-47. The petitioner questions the impugned resolutions as they are not sustainable in law.

( 5 ) MR. M. Adinarayana Raju, learned standing Counsel does not dispute the facts as stated above, but states that following the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 184 of 1998 which is between the Management Committee of TTD and one of the employees i. e. , R. Suryanarayana Murthy, Assistant Director of Information and Public Relations Department, Government of A. P. , was also deputed to the TTD s establishment and on obtaining permission from the Government, his services were absorbed in the TTD establishment as Public Relations Officer who was working on deputation from the Information and Public Relations Department of the State in the first respondent s establishment.

( 6 ) WHEN one of the first respondent s employees i. e. , O. Subba Reddy claiming to be appointed for the post of Public Relations Officer in the TTD approached this Court, and later went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has set aside the absorption of Mr. R. Suryanarayana Murthy in the TTD establishment, in Civil Appeal No. 184 of 1988, dated 17-8-1994.

( 7 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1166 of 1986, dated 9-11-1987 relied upon the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in CM. Naidu v. State of Karnataka, 1977 (1) SLR 194, and held as follows: the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations thus recognised only two modes of recruitment to the post of Senior Health Inspector, namely, promotion from the cadre of Junior Health Inspectors and deputation from the State Directorate of Health Services and one-half of the cadre was to be drawn from each of these two sources. No other mode of recruitment could be resorted to by the Corporation under the cadre and Recruitment Regulations. It is difficult to see how in the face of this provision which has admittedly statutory effect, the posts of Senior Health Inspector could be filled in by absorption of deputationist Senior Health Inspector from the Karnataka State Civil Service. Senior Inspectors from the State Directorate of Health Services could only be on deputation to the extent of one-half of the number of posts of Senior Health Inspectors on the Corporation establishment and they could not be absorbed as permanent Senior Health Inspectors under the Corporation without violating the aforesaid statutory provision. This statutory provision does not contemplate any Senior Health Inspector on the establishment of the Corpo