MANMOHAN SARIN, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER in this Writ Petition, assails order dated 4th April, 2006 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "cat")dismissing OA No. 2853/2005. Petitioner in OA had challenged the order dated 3. 8. 2005, repatriating him from CBI to CRPF.

( 2 ) PETITIONER prays for directions to set aside the orders reverting and placing him at the disposal of his parent Department i. e. CRPF. He further prays for directions to the CBI for considering his case for absorption on the basis of his service record as per Rules and Circulars issued.

( 3 ) FACTS leading to the present petition may briefly be recapitulated: (i)Petitioner joined CRPF as Sub Inspector on 16. 1. 1991. He was selected for deputation to CBI as Inspector after being released from CRPF with effect from 26. 3. 1997, he took charge on 4. 4. 1997. The initial deputation period was for five years and was extended for the sixth year i. e. upto 3. 4. 2004 (ii)During his Deputation in CBI he was inter alia, entrusted with the investigation of the Telgi Scam Case No. RC SIB 2004 It may be noted that the investigation of the Telgi Scam was the subject matter of Writ Petition (Civil)No. 522/2003: Ajay Kumar Aggarwal Vs Union of India in the Supreme Court. Vide its Order dated 10. 1. 2005, the Supreme Court noted the statement of the solicitor General as under:"learned Solicitor General states on instructions from the Department of personnel and Training (DOPT) that the CBI may submit proposals to the DOPT for extension of the period of deputationists on the case to case basis and such proposal, as far as possible, be considered by DOPT favourably, so as not to disrupt the pending investigations. This statement is taken on record. "

( 4 ) PETITIONER claiming to be an Investigating Officer in one of the Telgi cases has laid much emphasis on the above order of the Supreme Court to urge that the Supreme Court itself had directed that the period of deputation be extended so that the investigations are not disrupted, thereby devolving upon him a right to continue till the investigations are pending. He submits that the order of repatriation is contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court.

( 5 ) CBI issued a Circular dated 27. 1. 2005 bearing no. DP/pers. II/2004/384/a21021/2/2004 calling for nomination of eligible inspectors working in CBI for more than 4 years for absorption.

( 6 ) THE prospective candidates for absorption were required to meet the eligibility conditions as per the Recruitment Rules. Beside, the suitability of the willing candidates was required to be assessed by duly constituted Screening committee. Proposals were to be forwarded to the Head Office on or before 15. 2. 2005.

( 7 ) PETITIONER, having completed eight years of service as Inspector in cbi applied for absorption in CBI in and around the month of March, 2005. Petitioner's case was recommended by SP, DIG and Joint Director under whose administrative control, he was working in CBI. Meanwhile, the case for extension of the deputation period of the Petitioner was also taken up with the dopt. Decision on the same was awaited, when all of a sudden, the impugned order of repatriation of the Petitioner was passed on 3. 8. 2005.

( 8 ) PETITIONER alleges that the repatriation order was served on him at the unearthly hour at 10:30 in the night, without there being any emergent cause for the same. It is his case that the repatriation order was served in such haste that it has cast aspersions on his integrity and degraded his reputation in the eyes of his immediate colleagues, peers and Superiors.

( 9 ) PETITIONER, in these circumstances applied for leave on 4. 8. 2005 and did not join his Parent Organisation i. e CRPF. He was granted earned leave for 58 days w. e. f 4. 8. 2005 to 30. 9. 2005. Petitioner vide his representation dated 10. 8. 2005 protested to the respondents against the repatriation order by the cbi served on 3. 8. 2005 at 10:30 in the night. The