Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order contained in memo No.980 dated 21st september, 1992, (Annexure-1) by which the services of the petitioner have been reverted to his parent cadre in K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. In accordance with the recruitment rules, the petitioner was appointed on the post of photographer in K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, by the office order dated 17th July, 1973, as contained in Annexure a to the counter-affidavit. Thereafter on 10-3-1984 the petitioner was promoted to the post of technical assistant in the said institute. The Government thereafter posted the petitioner as a photographer in the State Council of Educational research and Training. Bihar, Patna, on deputation where he joined on 1-3.1985. Subsequently on setting up of the State Institute of Educational technology in the year 1985, the petitioner was selected for the post of camera-man as per Government Notification No.289 (C), dated 25-6-1985 and was transferred on deputation on that post under Government Notification no.618, dated 14-8-1987 on the following terms and conditions : (A) This deputation is being made in addition to his own duty. (B) This deputation is being made in his own pay scale and no additional monetary benefit will be provided (C) No claim for adjustment or appointment on the post will be acceptable. 3. Subsequently for some administrative reasons, the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were reverted to their parentcadre in K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, Vide impugned notification No.980, dated 21-9-1992. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of reversion to the parent cadre on the grounds, namely, (i) that since he has remained on deputation in the State Institute of educational Technology for more than seven years, therefore, the petitioner has acquired a right to be regularised in the said department, and that right cannot be taken away by the respondents and the respondents be stopped from disturbing the petitioner from the said deputation post, and (ii) the impugned action of the respondents is tainted with gross mala ides. 5. 5. To substantiate the first point, learned counsel has taken us to sarious documents to show that while the petitioner was on deputation he had been sent for various trainings to effectively discharge the nature of duties assigned to him and ha having acquired that expertise at the expenses of the Central Government and the State Government, it is incumbent upon the State Government to take expertise service from the petitioner on the deputation post. 6. To substantiate the ground of challenge based mala fides the petitioner has filed a petition at flag !" wherein, he has levelled serious illegations of personal bias, mischiefs and corrupt practices against Mr. R. K. Srivastava, the then Education Commissioner and has submitted that the impugned order has been passed just to cover up the said illegalities since the petitioner is possessed with unimpeachable evidence to prove and substantiate those allegations. 7. Mr. A. K. Keshri, learned G. P.6, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that four of the similarly situated employees of the Institute in question, who had also been similarly reverted to their parent cadre, had filed C. W. J. C. No.4409 of 1990 disposed of on 8-2-1991 wherein their prayer for regularisation has been rejected and the same has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No.2270 of 1992 disposed of on 4-5-1992 with a direction to the respondents to pay to the appellant the salary of the post in question for the period he worked. So far allegations of mala fides are concerned, it was submitted that these were misconceived and have been levelled by way of supplementary affidavit subsequent to the filing of the main writ application just to stake a claim to the reliefs prayer for. 8. After hearing learned counsels for the parties, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief by way of regularisation and quashing of the impugned order of reversion to the parent cadre. It is now well settled that Government servant on deputation can be reverted to his present cadre at any time and such servant do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post. (See AIR 1990 SC 1132 Ratilal B. Soni and others V/s. State of Gujarat and others ). It is now well settled that Government servant on deputation can be reverted to his present cadre at any time and such servant do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post. (See AIR 1990 SC 1132 Ratilal B. Soni and others V/s. State of Gujarat and others ). Same inference has to be drawn keeping in view the judgment by this Court in CWJC No/ 4409 of 1990 and that by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2270 of 1992, referred to above. 9. So far as the attack on the ground of mala fides is concerned, in my opinion, it is not necessary to enter into the details of the allegations, which are more personal in nature and need to be investigated at some other forum in a properly drawn up proceedings. Even if those allegations are found to be true, still the Government and its officers cannot be said to have been divested of its administrate power to revert its employee from deputation post to the parent cadre on administrative grounds. 10. Before parting with the case, I may observe that if the petitioner is entiiled to payment of any salary in terms of the order passed by the supreme Court in above referred Civil Appeal No.2270 of 1992, the petitioner should also be given the said benefit. 11. Subject to the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.