1. - Although this case has a convoluted history, but as the case has come up on the third stay application, all the facts of the case need not be narrated at this stage. Moreover, all the issues being raised need not be addressed, for any observation made by this Court may adversely affect the final out come of the writ petition.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Rohit Singh was appointed as a Project Engineer (Senior) in July, 1995 with the Rajasthan Housing Board ('the RHB', for short). On 10.05.2002, the petitioner was sent on deputation from RHB to the Jaipur Development Authority ('the JDA', for short). In pursuance of the said order, on 17.05.2002, the petitioner was relieved from the RHB and joined the JDA. Vide order dated 08.06.2004 and in consequence of its decision taken on 17.11.2001, the JDA decided to create thirteen posts of Sector Engineer which were to be filled in only by deputation. Meanwhile, after expiry of three years of deputation, the petitioner's term of deputation was extended for a period of one year w.e.f. 17.05.2005. On 02.05.2005, the Government of Rajasthan asked for no objection from the JDA for permanently absorbing the petitioner in the JDA. Vide order dated 06.05.2005, the JDA gave its consent to the Government. Consequently, on 17.08.2005, the Government sanctioned the petitioner's absorption in the JDA. Consequently, the JDA has asked the petitioner to submit his joining report. On 17.08.2005, the petitioner submitted his joining report; he was permanently relieved from the RHB.

3. Meanwhile, certain engineers, who were working as Junior Engineers in the JDA, challenged the order dated 08.06.2004 whereby the JDA had created the posts of Sector Engineer and had decided that the said posts be filled in only through deputation. Vide order dated 22.06.2005, this Court restrained the JDA from absorbing the petitioner on the post of Sector Engineer. The petitioner filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the ex-parte stay order dated 22.06.2005. Vide order dated 11.08.2005, the High Court vacated the said interim order. Since the Junior Engineers were aggrieved by the order being vacated, they filed a special appeal before a learned Division Bench of this Court. However, vide order dated 18.08.2005, the learned Division Bench dismissed the said appeal.

4. But, while admitting the writ petition, vide orders dated 24.03.2006 & 18.04.2006, the learned Single Judge restrained the JDA from calling any person on deputation, and directed the JDA not to extend the period of any person who is on deputation. It further restrained the JDA from regularising or absorbing any person on deputation. Simultaneously, it granted a liberty to the JDA to make appointment with prior permission of this Court. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a special appeal before a learned Division Bench. Vide order dated 03.05.2006, the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of with the observations that "it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to seek an extension of his deputation by filing a fresh application before the learned Single Judge." In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Single Judge for modification of the order dated 18.04.2006 and for extension of his deputation in JDA till permanent absorption was made on the post of Sector Engineer (Civil). Meanwhile, the JDA also filed an application for modification of the said order. Vide order dated 29.05.2006, while the petitioner's application was dismissed, the order dated 18.04.2006 was modified/clarified only to the extent that the order dated 18.04.2006 would confine itself to the posts encadred and included in the Schedule of the Rules of 1984.

5. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of his application, he again filed a special appeal before a learned Division Bench, challenging the order dat