M. Y. Eqbal, J. - The petitioners have challenged the Notification Nos. 7/03 and 8/03 both dated 27.8.2003 whereby the services of the petitioners sought to have been returned back to the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and also for quashing the consequential release orders dated 27.8.2003 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. releasing the petitioners from their services. The petitioner No. 1 who was initially joined in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in 1984 in Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB). By notification dated 13.6.1990 BSEB deputed petitioner No. 1 to Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (TVNL). In 1992 petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and continued in TVNL. In 1995 his deputation was withdrawn and his services were returned to BSEB and posted as Electrical Executive Engineer at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station. In 1998 he was promoted as Superintending Engineer and again deputed to TVNL and posted as Electrical Executive Engineer. In 2001 petitioner No. 1 was permitted to work as Chief Engineer TVNL Headquarter, Ranchi. However in 2002 he was relieved from his Additional responsibility of Chief Engineer and continued his service as Superintending Engineer in TVNL.

2. Similarly petitioner No. 2 was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Superintending and joined PTPS. He was promoted to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer in 1988 and was posted in Transmission circle C, Namkon in the BSEB. In 1996 the Sevices of petitioner No. 2 was sent to TVNL as Electrical Executive Engineer. He was also allowed to perform the duties of Electrical Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 1.2.2001 and still continuing on the said post.

3. All of a sudden by the impugned notifications issued under the signature of Joint Secretary (Administration and Establishment) TVNL the services of the petitioners sought to be returned relieving orders dated 27.8.2003 was issued.

4. Mr. A.K. Sahani assailed the Impugned notifications as being illegal mala fide and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that still the cadre division has not been finalized between the BSEB and Jharkhand State Electricity 8uard (JSEB) and in absence of order of Central Government or the successor State no employee could have been disturbed or transferred from their respective places of posting. Le8.rned counsel submitted that the Chairman TVNL has no jurisdiction at all to disturb the position of the petitioners in the garb of returning back to their services to BSEB. Learned counsel drawn my attention to Annexure 13 whereby as per the direction of the Central Government decision was taken that the employees of TVNL shall be deemed to be the employees of JSEB.

5. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for TVNL on other hand submitted that admittedly the petitioners services in TVNL was on deputation and, therefore, the petitioners have no right to continue their services in TVNL. Learned counsel submitted that it is for the BSEB and the JSEB to decide as to whether petitioners will continue their services i.e. in BSEB or JSEB after the cadre division is finalized. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subramaniam Swamy vs. Ramakrishna Hegde, AIR 1990 SC 113 and Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India, (2000)5 SCC 362.

6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the BSEB submitted that the Government of Jharkhand illegally constituted a Board of TVNL when as a matter of the Board of TVNL is still functioning and running its office at Patna. Learned counsel submitted that the Board constituted by the Jharkhand Government is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

7. The TVNL came into existence in 1990 which became an undertaking of the Government of Bihar. When TVNL was constituted number of employees including officers in the service of BSEB were sent to TVNL, The petitioners were also sent on deputatiO.1 and they alongwith