Judgment 1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September 6, 1993, passed by the learned trial Judge in Matter No. 2260 of 1986. In the said judgment, the learned judge passed the following order. 2. "IN view of the above it is ordered that the concerned respondents will give fresh appointment to the petitioner as schedule 'b' Stenographer IN the nadia Collectorate from the date the post of the stenographer for the 3rd addl. D. M. was sanctioned i.e. on and from March 29, 1986 and such appointment is to be made within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. " The respondent-writ petitioner's case IN short is that on October 1, 1992, he was appointed as stenographer IN the Nadia District Rural development Agency (NDRDA) which is an agency and an instrumentality of the State Government, against a permanent vacancy by the District magistrate Nadia, who was Vice President of NDRDA. Since his appointment the respondent writ petitioner has been serving IN the office of the District Magistrate IN its confidential section as per verbal order of the district Magistrate. By an order passed IN 1983 the respondent writ petitioner was attached to the Additional District Magistrate (Development), nadia until further orders. The Board of Revenue, West Bengal, by an order dated 21st/29th of March 1986 accorded sanction to the creation of a post of schedule B stenographer for the 3rd Additional District Magistrate, nadia and the District Magistrate, Nadia by his order dated 11th November 1986 absorved the respondent petitioner as schedule B stenographer against the post created under the said order of the Board of Revenue. The district Magistrate, Nadia further ordered that his pay on such absorption was to be fixed with retrospective effect from the date of his joining as stenographer and further that his past service rendered IN NDRDA was to be counted towards all available service benefits IN accordance with the rules. The respondent writ petitioner duly joined the said post IN the forenoon of November 14, 1986. Thereafter on December 8, 1986 the respondent-writ petitioner received am order dated November 1, 1986 passed by the Collector, Nadia to the effect that the earlier order for absorption as a stenographer IN the Nadia Collectorate was kept IN abeyance with immediate effect and until further orders. Thereafter on December 8, 1986 the respondent-writ petitioner received am order dated November 1, 1986 passed by the Collector, Nadia to the effect that the earlier order for absorption as a stenographer IN the Nadia Collectorate was kept IN abeyance with immediate effect and until further orders. This was stated to have been passed IN persuance of Secretary, Board of Revenue's Radiogram message dated December 2, 1986. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he had been working as stenographer IN the Nadia Collectorate to the entire satisfaction of the authority and that the impugned order dated december 8, 1986 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, void and opposed to fundamental principles of natural justice. 3. THE appellants herein being the respondents in the writ application contested the case by filing an affidavit stating, inter alia, that the writ petitioner who was a stenographer in the NDRDA which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and who was asked by the district Magistrate, Nadia as Vice President of NDRDA to work with him was never appointed as a stenographer in the Nadia Collectorate and that creation of the post of a B schedule stenographer in the Nadia Collectorate was a special case and if any appointment was at all made in favour of the writ petitioner by the District Magistrate regarding his absorption against such a newly created post, the same was highly irregular, illegal and liable to be withdrawn or set aside by the authority. It was alleged that the writ petitioner while working in the Nadia Collectorate was or must be treated to have been, on deputation and absorption of a deputationist can only be done by the Government and never by the District Magistrate and that as such any order passed by the District Magistrate, Nadia regarding his absorption in the Collectorate was illegal and a highly irregular and cannot and should not sustain nor be acted upon. 4. THE writ application was filed on December 15, 1986 and on November 25, 1988 the same was dismissed for default as neither party appeared. Therewith the interim order already passed was vacated. 4. THE writ application was filed on December 15, 1986 and on November 25, 1988 the same was dismissed for default as neither party appeared. Therewith the interim order already passed was vacated. The writ application was however, restored to file on May 14, 1992, but in the meantime the Collector, Nadia by his order dated April 29, 1992 reverted the writ petitioner to his parent department i.e. Nadia District Rural development Authority and subsequently released him with effect from may 4, 1992. The respondent writ petitioner did not, however, join and some amounts of money has been ordered to be paid to him as adhoc salary and allowance from time to time. It appears that the learned Trial Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and a number of decisions of the Supreme Court as relied upon by both the sidles, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was never declared to be on deputation and in consequence thereof and particularly, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner worked at least for 3 years continuously as stenographer in the Nadia Collectorate, natural presumption should be that he acquired the status of a permanent government servant of the Nadia District Collectorate. With this finding the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order for giving a fresh appointment with effect from the date of sanction of the post as already quoted. 5. BEING aggrived by the said decision, the Collector of Nadia and others i. e. , the State of West Bengal has preferred this appeal. 6. MR. Ukil, learned Government pleader basing his case on two supreme Court decisions reported in Union of India v. Panna Namba, 1989 SC 1185 and Ratital B Soni and Others, v. State of Gujrat and Others, 1990 SC 1132, submitted that neither there was any violation of the principle of natural justice in reverting the writ petitioner to his parent office nor an employee on deputation does get any right to be absorbed on a deputation post even if he was allowed to work continuously for a number of years, obviously through mistake, as a permanent employee attached to the office of the Collectorate. Mr. Mr. Maitra for the respondent herein submitted that he had not affirmed any affidavit in this appeal as he wanted to rely solely on the judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge and that he was relying on the decisions cited by him before the learned Trial Judge. His case is that keeping the order of absorption in abeyance as communicated by the impugned order dated December 8, 1986, is wholly devoid of reasons, arbitrary, politically motivated and opposed to all fundamental principles of natural justice. Earlier a specific written order was passed in favour of absorption and the said order was acted upon inasmuch as the writ petitioner was allowed to join the selection post and police verfication and medical examination was duly done. The District Magistrate is the appointing authority for all class III staff of the district and the writ petitioner respondent was initially appointed by the District Magistrate, may be as Vice Chairman of NDRDA. After appointment he was first asked to work in the confidential section of the Collectorate and was subsequently attached to the Additional District Magistrate (Development) without being given any deputation allowance which alone shows that he was treated as a permanent government employee of the Collectorate. His service book after it was opened in the NDRDA was forwarded to the District Magistrate and it was all along being maintained by the Collectorate as of an employee of the Collectorate. His Provident Fund Account was opened as a stenographer attached to the Nadia Collectorate and month by month subscriptions were deducted from his salary and credited to the said account. The gradation list in respect of stenographers of the Collectorate for successive years indicate that the petitioner's name was borne in the gradation list as a permanent staff even up to September 1992. From his annual Confidential Reports it appears that his performances were brilliant and on occasions he was asked to take down dictation of no less a person than the Governor of the State. He was never given any deputation allowance. He was no where shown or treated as on deputation. B schedule stenographer is a selection, post and by absorbing or appointing him against the said post his appointing authority only recognised his merits as an employee of the Collectorate. It appears from annexure B to affidavit-in-opposition that the State government by memorandum no. He was no where shown or treated as on deputation. B schedule stenographer is a selection, post and by absorbing or appointing him against the said post his appointing authority only recognised his merits as an employee of the Collectorate. It appears from annexure B to affidavit-in-opposition that the State government by memorandum no. 4574-F dated 17th July 1973 dispensed with the requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commission before recruitment in the basic grade posts of stenographers both in schedule A and Schedule B and laid down that the recruitment to those posts of stenographers would not came under the "special Recruitment rules" forwarded with their memo dated 21st November 1972. It further appears from the Gradation list, Annexure O that there are both PSC and non-PSC stenographer attached to the Nadia Collectorate. It is nobody's case that the petitioner was taken on deputation against a particular post of stenographer. In fact, he was appointed under NDRDA and was asked to work in the Collectorate by an oral order passed by the collector who was the vice president of the NDRDA. His services were utilized for a number of years even by being attached to ADM (development and then when the post of B schedule stenographer was created, he was absorbed against that post with all service benefits. The learned Government pleader has raised vehement objection to the order of absorption on the ground that absorption of a deputationist can only be done by the State Government and not by the District Magistrate but then the District Magistrate is the appointing authority and he is competent to appoint stenographer in the basic grade of B Schedule post even from outside and this order or appointment although stated as absorption, is for all practical purposes an appointment to an outsider who has been working in a sister department, so to say, and his past services were recognized as there was no alternative than to do so because of his brilliant performance. 7. ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case, the petitioner was appointed in the post and was allowed to function in the post for a long time. Before that his service was utilised by the Collector. Originally, he was a stenographer in nadia District Rural Development Agency and subsequently he was appointed in the service of the Government by the Collector. It is not a case of deputation. Before that his service was utilised by the Collector. Originally, he was a stenographer in nadia District Rural Development Agency and subsequently he was appointed in the service of the Government by the Collector. It is not a case of deputation. He had no lien to the earlier service. He had joined the service on the clear understanding that this is a new appointment and, accordingly, he had severed his connection with his earlier employer. In this circumstance, the doctrine of legitimate expectation comes into play. The Supreme Court in Navjoyoti Co-operative Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 477 , held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such legitimate expectation. The existence of legitimate expectation, may have a number of different consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority ought not to act to defeat the legitimate expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so. Before adopting any new policy affecting the benefit or advantage, the parties likely to be affected by any change of consistent past policy, entitled to an opportunity to make representation before the Government. 8. IN Lloyd v Momahan (1987) I All ER 1118, it was held that fairness might require the decision maker to offer an oral hearing, depending on the circumstances of the case. Legitimate expectation is intended to achieve fairness. In Union of India v Hindustan Development Corporation reported in air 1994 SC 980, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. 9. IN Surya Narain Yadav v Bihar State Electricity Board, reported in AIR 1985 SC 941 , it was held that the Statutory Bodies are bound by the representation made by them to their employees upon which the employees acted to their own prejudice. Accordingly, the claim based on the principles of legitimate expectation can be sustained and the decision resulting in denial of such expectation can be questioned provided the same is found to be unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice. 10. Accordingly, the claim based on the principles of legitimate expectation can be sustained and the decision resulting in denial of such expectation can be questioned provided the same is found to be unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice. 10. CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the most legitimate expectation of the writ petitioner respondent for being absorbed or appointed against the newly created post has been trampled and the order of reversion to NDRDA without even giving him a chance of hearing is unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. There is nothing wrong in giving fresh appointment to one who is an employee of a semi-government organisation and whose services have been utilized for a pretty long time in the interest of public service. It is also not the case of the Appellant that by this appointment he superseded the claims of any other stenographer appointed earlier than him. We are of the view that although it is stated to be a case of absorption, but really it is a fresh appointment against a newly created post with retrospective service benefit and it can not be challenged as the letter of appointment that was given to the writ petitioner-respondent having already been acted upon cannot be subsequently nullified. It was contended that there was no post against which he could be given the benefit of pay fixation for services prior to such appointment but in our view the contention loses force for the simple reason that even to bring one or deputation, a post is needed. However his initial pay may be fixed notionally. In our view it is rather a case of regularization of the appointment as and when a post is available and we uphold the order of the learned Trial judge with the modification that the absorption/appointment already given is to be treated as a fresh appointment from the same date and the benefit of fixation of pay notionally from the date of his initial appointment should also be given to him. Let expeditious steps be taken for compliance of this order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The appeal is dismissed but the order of the learned Trial Judge however stands modified as indicated above. 11. MR. Let expeditious steps be taken for compliance of this order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The appeal is dismissed but the order of the learned Trial Judge however stands modified as indicated above. 11. MR. Ukil the learned Counsel for the appellant prays for stay of the operation of the judgment and order. Such prayer is considered and refused. 12. ALL parties concerned are to act on a signed xerox copy of this judgment and order on the usual undertaking.