Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following prayers:-

"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 30.3.2002 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be restrained from filling the post of the petitioner and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue on the said post.

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 30.3.2002 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be absorbed and allowed to continue on the said post.

(iii) Alternatively by an appropriate writ, order or direction, Rule 7 as well as Schedule-II referred in Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service of Project Directors, Project Officers and Officers in the Women Development Project) Rules, 1984 may kindly be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution under Article 14, 16, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India.

(iv) In case any prejudicial action is taken or order is passed then the same may kindly be quashed and set aside with an appropriate order.

(v) Any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. "

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the threshold submitted that he is not pressing the prayer no.3 and therefore, the same prayer is dismissed as not pressed. The adjudication of prayers no.1 & 2 is accordingly made.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Child Development Project officer (for short, 'CDPO') vide order dated 17/11/1988 and thereafter he continued to discharge his duties accordingly. On 01/02/1994 an advertisement was published for the post of Project Director in the pay-scale of 3700-5000 inviting applications from officers of the State Government. The petitioner made an application and was duly selected as per the recommendations of the Selection Committee in accordance with Rule 10, Rule 13 and Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service of Project Directors, Project Officers and Officers in the Women Development Project) Rules, 1984 (for short, 'Rules of 1984'). In the advertisement, the condition nos. 2 & 3 made it clear that this was an appointment on deputation after adopting due selection process. The appointment order dated 20/03/1995 also mentioned that the appointment was on deputation basis. It is also mentioned that the same appointment order carried the mention of one Smt. Chitra Rathore at serial no.2.. The petitioner continued to serve the respondents until 03/03/2002 on the post of Project Director and then as per order dated 30/03/2002, the petitioner stood repatriated to the post of CDPO as her term had come to an end. The petitioner challenged this order of repatriation from the post of Project Officer to CDPO bringing an end to her deputation vide order dated 30/03/2002. The petitioner also produced an order dated 01/04/2002 whereby other similarly situated candidates were continued on deputation on the post of Project Director and this order of extension included name of Smt. Chitra Rathore.

4. The respondents filed a reply and submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to be continued on deputation as there is no right to deputation. It was also submitted by the respondents that the fixed tenure of the petitioner had come to an end and therefore, she was being relieved and sent back to her original post of CDPO in accordance with law. It was also submitted by the respondents that Smt. Chitra Rathore is a member of a Non-Government Organization, Rupayan and was selected for the post of Project Director, District Women Development Agency on contract basis under the Rules of 1984 for a fixed term and her term has not yet been expired. It was further stated that the State Government had taken a