J. M. Srivastava. J. — The petitioner, an employee of the respond­ent- Government in the Department of Education, while 'working as Inspector of Schools, in December, 1979 had applied (Annexure Al) for the post of Deputy Secretary in the Tripura Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred as 'the Board'). The application was forwarded to the Board on 11th January, 1979 (Annexure A2). The petitioner was given offer of appointment to the post of Deputy Secret­ary by the Board by Memorandum dated 13.3.1979 (Annexure-A3). dated 17 4.1979 (Annexure A4). By Memorandum dated 25.4.1979 (Annexure A 5) the petitioner was appointed Deputy Secretary in the Office of the Board of Secondary Education and was required to communicate whether he wanted to serve on foreign service terms. On 23rd October, 1979 the Board by Memorandum (Annexure A 7) informed the petitioner that even though six months had passed he had not joined the post of Deputy Secretary and was requested to join positively by 8th November, 1979; it was also stated 'failing that the appointment would be cancelled'. On his prayer, it appears the time was further extended by the Board by Memorandum dated 3rd November, 1979 upto 15.11.1979. The petitioner was not relieved by his parent Department and could not join. Aggrieved, the petitioner came to this Court. 2. The post of Deputy Secretary in the Board carried higher scale of pay of which the petitioner expected to obtain benefit but which even after receipt of order of appointment he could not join because he was not relieved it appears by his parent department. 3. T e respondents have submitted that the petitioner could not be relieved by the department and since he had no right to go to another post on foreign service terms, he had no right to relief prayed. 4. In the meanwhile, it appears that the petitioner has been promoted in the parent department to the post of Headmaster which is equal in rank and pay to the post of Deputy Secretary in the Board. The petitioner is also due to retire as stated in about two years time. 5. We have heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.N.Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 6. The petitioner is also due to retire as stated in about two years time. 5. We have heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.N.Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 6. The petitioner on receipt of order of appointment to the post of Deputy Secretary in the Board had opted for foreign service terms which meant that he was to retain lien on the permanent post in i.is parent department. The parent department had not relieved him and hence he could not join. An employee has no right to claim to be relieved to enable him to join another post in another department of foreign service terms which obviously theref re means that consent of the parent department w<is necessary. 7. An app lintment on foreign service terms, generally known as deputation appointment, postulates retention of lien on the post in the parent department, settlement of terms between the lending that is the parent department, the borrowing department, i. e. where the employee is to join in the new post and also tiie employee. The terms relate to various service matters and incidents of service like pay, liability for apportionment of pensionary benefits between the departments, arrang­ement to be made in the parent department for the period of absence of the employee etc. Obviously, therefore consent of all the above said authorities is required. Since the employee concerned belongs to the parent department without its consent the employee cannot go on foreign service terms and naturally therefore, it cannot be said that an employee has a right to go on foreign service terms. It was therefore, up to the parent department of the petitioner to allow the petitioner to go to another department on foreign service terms or not to allow him to go to join in the new post. We therefore, see no infringement of any right of the petitioner as such and consequently the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed. The petition is dismissed. We make on order as to costs.