1. The petitioner was appointed in 1976 as a driver in the Bihar State Sugar Development Corporation. He was working there when the Corporation (like many other Corporations and Boards in this State) started going down the hill. By and by its financial position became from bad to worse and at one stage the Corporation was not even able to pay salary to its employees. In those circumstances, an idea appears to have been mooted to send out the employees of the Corporation on deputation to different Government departments.

2. According to the petitioner in June, 1999 he too made a request for being sent out on deputation. At that time a request was received in the Corporation from the Relief & Rehabilitation Department, Government of Bihar asking for employees on deputation to work on certain posts, including the post of driver. The Corporaton forwarded the names of the petitioner (for the post of driver) and another employee, namely, Barkatullah Khan for the post of peon. Thereupon the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Department of Relief & Rehabilitation issued an office order under his memo no. 1651, dated 16.8.99 (Annexure 2) posting the petitioner and Barkatullah Khan on deputation, till further orders, as driver and peon respectively.

3. The petitioner and Barkatullah Khan were then relieved by the Corporation by order, dated 18.8.99 (Annexure 3) and they gave their joining in the Government department on the same date. By an office order, dated 4.9.94 issued by the Government Department the joining of the petitioner (and Barkatullah Khan) was accepted with effect from the fore-noon of 18.8.99. By another office order, dated 24.9.99 approval was granted for payment of salary to the petitioner (and Barkatullah Khan) on the basis of their last pay certificates. The petitioner was working there when by office order, dated 15.3.2000 his deputation in the Government department was terminated with effect from the date of issuance of the order and he was asked to go back to the Corporation. By the same order, the Corporation ws requested to send the services of one Muktinath Singh, a Class IV employee on deputation to the Government department.

4. This writ petition has been filed challenging the office order, dated 15.3.2000 in so far as it terminates the petitioners deputation and sends him back to the Corporation.

5. In the writ petition, it is stated that there were five posts of driver, three of which were duly filled up and against the remaining two posts, peons and other Class IV employees were being made to work. It is asserted by the petitioner that not only there were vacancies in the post of driver but the department, in fact, needed more employees as would be evident from the fact that Barkatullah Khan was retained on deputation and the department had also asked the Corporation to send another Class IV employee Muktinath Singh on deputation. According to the petitioner, he was unreasonably and arbitrarily singled out for being sent back to the Corporation.

6. The respondent authorities have filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit. The central theme of the counter affidavit is that the petitioner, being on deputation, had no right to the post and he must leave o.nce the department took the decision to end his deputation. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that the Minister, Relief & Rehabilitation by his I.O.U., dated 26.11.99 had directed for the return of the petitioner to the Corporation "on account of his whimsical absence from duty" whereupon the department terminated his deputation taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner was inducted on deputation till further orders. In the counter affidavit it was admitted that there were five posts of driver but it was stated that Class IV employees knowing driving were employed as drivers in exigencies of the situation.

7. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it is stated that following the bifurcation of the Sta