( 1 ) THESE are a group of writ petitions involving similar question of law and facts and, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. At the time of arguments W. P. (C) 17343/2004 titled Shyam Singh v. Union of India and Others was treated as a lead case and we will be referring to the facts of this case. However, we were informed that the facts of the other cases are not different.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was/is an employee of Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as respondent-BSF, for short) and was sent on deputation to Intelligence bureau for a period of five years. Even after the expiry of the said period, the petitioner continued to be on deputation with the Intelligence Bureau and he was not repatriated to his parent organisation. It is the contention of the petitioner that he should be deemed to have been absorbed in Intelligence Bureau, immediately on completion of five years of deputation servie. In this regard reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Prashad v. U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, VIII (1999) SLT 303=jt (1999) 7 SC 44. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Intelligence Bureau has from time-to- time recommended the case of the petitioner for absorption but the parent department, i e BSF has wrongly and illegally not given its consent for absorption. Allegations of discrimination have also been made with the allegation that the parent department has given consent or no objection certificates for absorption of juniors/others.

( 3 ) SIMILAR contentions were also raised by the petitioner before the learned central Administrative Tribunal but the said contentions were rejected by relying upon decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Satender Pal and Others v. Union of India and Others in Civil Writ No. 7406/2002 decided on 20th November, 2002. The Tribunal also relied upon its Full Bench decision, inter alia, holding that deputationists cannot claim for deemed absorption in Intelligence Bureau and they also do not have any right to be considered for absorption, without consent of the parent department in view of the Office Memorandum dated 30. 1. 1992.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent in addition to relying upon the order of the Tribunal, has also referred to decision by this Court in W. P (C) No. 7989/2005 titled Santosh Kumari v. Union of India and Others decided on 6. 5. 2005. In the said decision, this Court relied upon several earlier decisions including Arjun singh Negi v. Union of India, in Civil Writ No. 2366/2003 and Constable Nafe singh v. Union of India and Others, Civil Writ No. 5220/1997. In the last case, this Court has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of madhya Pradesh v. Ashok Deshmukh and Another, (1988) 3 SLR 336.

( 5 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. In view of the decisions of this Court in the case of Arjun Singh (supra), nafe Singh (supra) and Santosh Kumari (supra), there cannot be any dispute that the deputationists have no legal and vested right to claim absorption and resist repatriation to their parent department.

( 6 ) AS per the Intelligence Bureau (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to the Rules, for short) 75% of the posts of Security Assistant in Intelligence Bureau were/rre to be filled up by direct recruitment and 25% of the posts were/are to be filled up by deputation/transfer. Suitable persons from State police service or Central Police Organisations or Defence Forces were/are taken on deputation in Intelligence Bureau. As per the recruitment rules, ordinarily the deputation period should not exceed five years but the same can be extended by the borrowing department. It may also be noticed that there is no provision under the rules for permanent absorption for employees who come on deputation. However, there is an Office Memorandum of Intelligence Bureau dated 31. 1. 19