JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ or mandamus to continue him on the post of P.G.T. (History) in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Nandla, Ajmer. 2. In brief, the petitioner's case is that he was working as a Librarian in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jobner in senior scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and he was having 12 year's teaching experience in the subject of Social Studies in the aforesaid institution. Thereafter, he was appointed on the post of P.G.T.(History) on the recommendations made by a Selection Committee in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and was posted at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Nandla (District-Ajmer). A copy of that order has been placed on record as Annexure-1. A perusal of the appointment letter dated 23.6.90 (Ann.1) shows that the appointment was on deputation basis for a period of two years extendable for another one year. His lien was kept for a period of two years on the post held by him at the time of appointment. The Samiti (Appointing Authority) reserved the right to repatriate at any time before the completion of the normal deputation period. In pursuance to the aforesaid appointment letter, the petitioner joined the new assignment on July 31, 1990. The grievance of the petitioner is that his work was satisfactory, but, on account of malice, the Principal of the institution (respondent No. 3), has manipulated for the repatriation of the petitioner. Hence, the writ has been filed for the relief as stated above. 3. The respondents have filed their return. In their return, they admitted that the petitioner was working as Librarian in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jobner.' It was also admitted that the petitioner was selected deputation vide appointment letter Annexure-1 on the terms and conditions which have been laid down in the document itself. Then, it was submitted that the application of the petitioner for absorption was forwarded by the then Principal Shri L.R. Guru. The said application was considered by a committee constituted for the purpose of considering the matter of absorption about the teachers on deputation and he was not found out for absorption. It was further stated that 73 cases were considered by the committee on 17.5.91 and the Committee consisted of Dy. The said application was considered by a committee constituted for the purpose of considering the matter of absorption about the teachers on deputation and he was not found out for absorption. It was further stated that 73 cases were considered by the committee on 17.5.91 and the Committee consisted of Dy. Director, Regional Office, Jaipur; as its Chairman; Education Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional Office, Jaipur; Assistant Director and representative of N.V.S. H.Q., New Delhi as its members. According to the respondents, the case of the petitioner was considered on the overall assessment of his entire working or the period till 17.5.91 and the Committee which was constituted for the purpose of recommending cases for absorption and repatriation found that the petitioner was not fit to be absorbed. It was also stated that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory as detailed out by the Absorption Committee in its meeting dated 17.5.91. It was denied that respondent No. 3 was having malice against the petitioner. All other averments were also denied. It was further stated that the period of deputation of the petitioner has expired on 30th July, 1992 and he was accordingly relieved to report at its parent department. According to the respondents the petitioner has no right to claim for extension of deputation period or retention in service of the respondents and the answering respondents had every right to act upon the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter Annexure-1 which was accepted by the petitioner. According to them the case of the petitioner was objectively considered by an independent Committee and he was not found fit for absorption and the allegations of malice and manipulation are wholly without basis. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The principal contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that he has right to be absorbed even after the expiry of two years' term fixed in the appointment letter Annexure-1, and, that the action of the respondents to repatriate him is arbitrary and on account of malice of respondent No. 3, while the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner was only on deputation and he cannot claim any right of absorption, specially when he was not found fit by the Absorption Committee. According to the respondents, the Absorption Committee had acted with fairness and cases of 73 persons were examined including that of the petitioner and all the cases were examined objectively. 5. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner was appointed on deputation vide Annexure-1. A deputationist does not have any legal right to continue in service with the employer under whom he is on deputation. The employee retains his lien in the parent department and it is for the department to decide as to whether he should be absorbed permanently or not. The petitioner cannot claim that any legal or fundamental right has been infringed in not absorbing him after due consideration of his case. He has been considered by the Committee and he could only claim to be considered for absorption. The petitioner could not tell any malice against the Absorption Committee which had considered his case. It is true that he has alleged malice against respondent No. 3 - Principal of the Institution, but, he was not a member of Absorption Committee and even the facts regarding malice have been denied by the respondent. A similar question was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Har Prasad Dwivedi v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2772/1991) decided on Nov. 4, 1991 . The Court held that there is no vested right of permanent absorption and a deputationist cannot claim any legal right to continue in service with the employer under whom he is in service. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench which was also dismissed on 29.11.1991. The Bench held "the period of two years of deputation has already been passed away. It is for the School authorities to consider regarding the suitability or unsuitability and this Court will not enter into the area of enquiry and come to an independent conclusion on this point'.It was also observed : "It hardly needs to be mentioned that the petitioner has no right to continue in service after a period of two years. He came on deputation for a period of two years and the respondents are fully authorised to consider the suitability of the appellant before his absorption permanently." 6. The aforesaid observations fully applied in the present case. He came on deputation for a period of two years and the respondents are fully authorised to consider the suitability of the appellant before his absorption permanently." 6. The aforesaid observations fully applied in the present case. Therefore all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are rejected. 7. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******