S. CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) -THIS first mandamus appeal is against the judgment of a single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners. S. CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) -THIS first mandamus appeal is against the judgment of a single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners/appellants praying, inter alia :- (A) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents their agents, subordinates and/or each of them to act in terms of the instructions issued by the Government of India vide O. M. No. 5 (25)/83-BPE (PESB) dated 6th Mach, 1985 and O. M. No. 28016/5/85-Estt (C) dated 31st January, 1986 under the Rule 110 of the Fundamental Rules and to treat the petitioners' deputation Foreign Service with the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. , a Central Public Enterprises on immediate absorption basis and not to revert them to their parent department (Amalgamated Clerical Grade) Andaman and Nicobar Administration; (b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents their agents, subordinates and/or each of them to allot the work to the petitioners according to their previous status/grade treating them permanently absorb in the Foreign Service under the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. , Port Blair and to allow them the Pay Scales of the said Corporation from their date of joining in the said Foreign Service and not to take any decision and/or pass order of reversion the petitioners to the parent department and if already done so against them and/or any of them the same shall not be given effect to; (c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents their agents, subordinates and/or each of them to transmit all the relevant records relating to the case before this Hon'ble Court so that a conscionable justice may be administered by quashing the same; (d) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above showing cause the respondents as to why the petitioners' service should not be treated as immediate absorption basis with the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. , Port Blair in not reverting them to their parent department and not to allow these work according to their previous status grade with the pay scales of the said Corporation since and from their date of joining in the said Foreign Service with the said Corporation; (e) Ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondent their agents, subordinates and/or each of them from taking any decision or passing any order of reversion in respect of the deputation Foreign Services of the petitioners with the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. , Port Blair to their parent department (Amalgamated Clerical Cadre, Andaman and Nicobar Administration) and if any order is already passed shall not be given effect to and also restraining them from taking any other steps regarding the service of the petitioner and directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue the work as they are working to the said Corporation till the disposal of this application; (f) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (e) above; (g) Such further or other orders be made and/or directions be given including these relating to the costs of and incidental to this application as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. ( 2 ) THE writ-petitioners challenged the impugned order of repatriation after the expiry of the period of deputation alleging, inter alia, that the respondent-authorities have acted arbitrarily and illegally in not absorbing the writ-petitioners permanently at the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. at Port Blair and decided to repatriate them to their parent department (Amalgamated Clerical Cadre of Andaman and Nicobar Administration ). It was further alleged that the deputation service of the petitioners to the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. ought to have been treated as Foreign Service under the provisions of the Fundamental Rules 110 and under sub-rule (b) transfer to foreign service outside India and in India may be sanctioned by the Central Government in the manner as provided thereto. It was placed on record that by invoking the provisions of the said Rules, the Central Government issued O. M. No. 5 (25)/83-BPE (PESB) dated 6th March, 1985 wherein it had reviewed the policy regarding deputation of Government Officers to the Central Public Enterprises for toning up the performances of public Enterprises and in supersession of all other orders it had decided that deputation of all Government Officers including defence service to all posts (whether Board of Level or below Board level) in Central Public Enterprises should not be permitted from the date and such officers could join posts in the Central Public Enterprises only on immediate absorption basis. There is further reference of O. M. No. 28016/5/85-Estt (C) dated 31st January, 1986 giving certain important instructions by which the Government servant who has been selected for a post in a Central Public Enterprises only be released after obtaining and accepting his resignation, and no loin/quasi-permanent status of the Government servant concerned would not be retained in his parent cadre and all his connections with the Government be severe on his release for appointment in an enterprise and he would not be allowed to his parent cadre. ( 3 ) THE writ-petitioners made out a case that they have joined on deputation foreign service to the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. as per the provisions of the Fundamental Rules 110 and have been working there, but in spite of the instructions as mentioned aforesaid notification dated 6th of March, 1985 and 31st of January, 1986, the respondent-authorities have neglected to absorb them permanently in the said Enterprises/corporation and such action, of the respondents are highly arbitrary and illegal. The specific case of the writ-petitioners was that the respondent-authorities had decided illegally to revert the petitioners to the parent department by ignoring the provisions of the Rules as well as the instructions contained in the aforesaid O. Ms. issued by the Central Government, with regard to the permanent absorption of the deputationists on foreign service and as such actions of the respondents are therefore, arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge heard the matter and dismissed the case with reasons holding, inter alia, that it was clear that the petitioners were sent on deputation after keeping lien to their respective posts in the parent department. The relationship between the Master and Servant and the employer and employee, relationship between the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and the petitioners had not come to an end and the same was kept alive and the Shipping Corporation of India had no authority or jurisdiction to terminate the relationship of Master and Servant and since the petitioners, who are all employees of Andaman and Nicobar Administration, had actually been sent on deputation on certain terms and conditions, the Shipping Corporation of India as a foreign employer cannot absorb them unilaterally to the service. The petitioners, it was observed, accepted the deputation service on the terms and conditions disclosed to them and they had accepted the same with their eyes open and law is well settled that a Government Servant on deputation can be repatriated to the parent cadre and they cannot get any right to be absorbed in the deputation post. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court page 1132 (Ratilal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat) was referred. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment the present appeal has been preferred. Mr. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court page 1132 (Ratilal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat) was referred. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment the present appeal has been preferred. Mr. Roy appearing for the appellants has mainly argued that first the administrative orders made on 6th March, 1985 and 31st January, 1986 clearly provide, inter alia, that there cannot be any deputation for any limited period. An employee can only be transferred for being absorbed permanently and the employee could be released after tendering resignation. In the instant case the petitioners were actually transferred for being absorbed permanently. If both the administrative orders are reconciled it would be construed that the orders of deputation made in respect of the petitioners was for the purpose of being absorbed permanently. The stipulated period and the expression "deputation" have got to be understood in the proper perspective. The attention of the court has been drawn to the aspect secondly that there is no scope for appreciating that the administrative orders and executive instructions are inconsistent with the Fundamental Rules. The attention of the Court has strongly been drawn to Rule 110 at the Chapter-XII-Foreign Service. Fundamental Rule 110 envisages : (A)no Government servant may be transferred to foreign service against his will; provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to the transfer of a Government servant to the service of a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government. (b) transfer to foreign service outside India and in India may be sanctioned by the Central Government subject to any restrictions, which it may deem fit to impose by general or special order. ( 6 ) MR. Roy further emphasised that the impugned administrative orders and the executive instructions were made in terms of rule 110 (b) and the steps taken by the respondents are irregular and illegal and the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the scope of the impugned order and the case as made out by the writ petitioners/appellants. Mr. Roy has further tried to meet a preliminary point raised by the respondents that the writ petition was hit by section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Mr. Roy has further tried to meet a preliminary point raised by the respondents that the writ petition was hit by section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. He has placed the entire section 14 of the said Act and strongly argued that the petitioners do not come under the mischief of the said section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and it was not within the competence and jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal to grant the reliefs to the petitioners as prayed for. ( 7 ) MR. Chouhan appearing on behalf of the Respondents has tried to justify the order of the Single Judge on merit that by construing the service conditions the petitioners were allowed to go on deputation in foreign service under the specific terms and conditions. The lien was kept alive. The petitioners were repatriated and they have joined their parent department and the writ petition is rather misconceived. ( 8 ) HE has, however, tried to argue that the writ petition was not maintainable and the same was hit by section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act as indicated above. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondents at length we find from the record that while the application for stay was heard on July 15, 1992 the learned Advocate appearing for the Shipping Corporation of India has raised a preliminary point about the maintainability of the entire proceeding including the appeal before this Court on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioners originally being Central Government Employees, cannot move the High Court as section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 will be a bar. The question of maintainability was thus kept open and the leave was granted to the Shipping Corporation of India to raise the question of maintainability of the writ petition and also this appeal at the final hearing of the case. ( 10 ) WE find that the petitioners challenged the order of repatriation made by the Shipping Corporation of India. We have been taken through the provisions of section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act in details and all its amendments enlisting the names of Government of India Enterprises. We are satisfied that regard being had to the materials on record and the facts of the case, the writ petitioners could not have gone to the Administrative Tribunal to seek the reliefs. We are satisfied that regard being had to the materials on record and the facts of the case, the writ petitioners could not have gone to the Administrative Tribunal to seek the reliefs. The point of maintainability of the writ petition and the appeal on the ground of bar under section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is not appreciated. This point is answered in the negative. ( 11 ) WITH great anxiety we have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and the respondents authorities on the merit of the case. We find that the petitioners were allowed to go on deputation. The administrative orders and/or the executive instructions as made on 6th of March, 1985 and 31st of January, 1986 provide that a person may be allowed to go on deputation for being permanently absorbed after tendering his resignation. It does not rule out the case of releasing a person on deputation by keeping the lien for a limited period. In the instant case there was neither resignation by the petitioners nor they were allowed to go on deputation on the permanent basis. The contention of the appellants is not appreciated by us that the possibility of permitting an employee to go on deputation for a limited period is unknown according to the administrative orders dated 6th of March, 1985 and 31st of January, 1985. We have carefully looked to the instructions and the administrative orders in depth and in details. By reconciling the said administrative orders we do not find that these are inconsistent with the Fundamental Rules of either transfer or for deputation. The argument made on behalf of the appellants, in our view has no merit inasmuch as we do not find that there is any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In fact the writ-petitioners/appellants accepted the order of deputation on terms with clear understanding and having their eyes open and after the expiry of the terms of deputation they cannot raise objections that they should not be repatriated and they have got a right in the post as indicated above. For the foregoing reasons we are not convinced that the appellants have been able to make out any case of interference. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal, thus, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. For the foregoing reasons we are not convinced that the appellants have been able to make out any case of interference. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal, thus, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. N. K. Batabayal, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.