JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This petition is directed against the order, dated 22nd August, 1988, Annexure 2, passed by the Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation Special Police Establishment, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner Shabbir Ahmad has been placed under suspension. This order has been passed under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 2. The petitioner was recruited as constable of Civil Police at Police Lines Allahabad on 15th February, 1978. in the year 1980 he was appointed as Constable Driver in the U.P. Police. By an order, dated 3rd October, 1987 issued from the U. P. Police Headquarters the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation where he joined on 1st November, 1987 at Lucknow. While serving in the Central Bureau of Investigation the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order. 3. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension on various grounds including lack of jurisdiction in the Central Bureau of Investigation to place him under suspension. 4. The learned counsel for the Union of India has raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court. He has submitted that in view of Section 14(1 )(c) of the Administration Tribunals Act, 1985, it is the Central Administrative Tribunal which has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. He has invited our attention to earlier decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4914 of 1988 - Bhairo Prasad v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, in support of his plea of lack of jurisdiction of this Court. Section 14(l)(c) provides as following : "14(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court (* * *) in relation to - (a) ............... Section 14(l)(c) provides as following : "14(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court (* * *) in relation to - (a) ............... (b) all service matters concerning - (i) a member of any All India Service ; or (ii) a person (not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause (c) appointed to civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union ; or (iii) a civilian (not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause (c) appointed to any defence service or a post connected with defence ; and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the Government ; (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation (or society) or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment." (Emphasis supplied) 5. From the underlined portion in the above extract it is apparent that even a deputations has the remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal and it was so held by this Court in Bhairo Prasad (supra). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that certain aspects were not considered in the earlier decision. According to him clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 will apply when a deputations is appointed by the Central Government. According to the learned counsel the present petitioner was simply sent on deputation by the U. P. Police Headquarters to the Central Bureau of Investigation but no formal order of appointment "'as passed by that Bureau in favour of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel the present petitioner was simply sent on deputation by the U. P. Police Headquarters to the Central Bureau of Investigation but no formal order of appointment "'as passed by that Bureau in favour of the petitioner. In the writ petition the petitioner has indeed not referred to any order of the Central Bureau of Investigation whereby he may have taken over charge in that office, but he has also not stated that after he reported for duty at the Central Bureau of Investigation no letter of appointment was given to him. 7. Further we are of the opinion that clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 does not contemplate issue of an actual order of appointment. The term "appointment" is of wider import and connotes mere assignment of work also. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary the term "appoint" of which the term "appointment" is a derivative is defined as follows : "to assign designate". One of the meaning assigned to the term "appointment" in the said dictionary is "engagement". Obviously the petitioner had been sent to the Central Government for being assigned with work in one of its departments or to engage the petitioner in a work relating to the Central Government. The petitioner's assignment to the Central Government by deputation is fully covered by the term appointment used in Section 14(D(c). 8. In view of the above we are of the opinion that the Central Administrative Tribunal is competent to deal with the petitioner's grievance against the suspension order. In respect of this grievance of the petitioner this Court accordingly does not have jurisdiction. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that apart from challenging the order of suspension the petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department. According to him this relief cannot be entertained by the Central Administrative Tribunal. This mandamus has of course been sought against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the U. P. Police Headquarter. However, if the petitioner feels that he has a right to compel opposite-parties 3 and 4 to repatriate him to his parent department he can approach the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. This mandamus has of course been sought against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the U. P. Police Headquarter. However, if the petitioner feels that he has a right to compel opposite-parties 3 and 4 to repatriate him to his parent department he can approach the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. Merely by clubbing a relief against the State Government with the relief in respect of which the Central Administrative Tribunal alone has jurisdiction the petitioner cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Central Tribunal. 10. In view of the above the petition is dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction in this Court to entertain the same.