Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 22.9.95, delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 1019 of 1995 (Suresh Prasad Singh vs. Union of India & others), thereby holding that petitioner's voluntary retirement was not justified and setting aside the order, and allowing the petitioner to join service making it clear that he shall not get any salary from 1st December, 1993 till the date of his joining. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order both, the petitioner as well as respondent High Court, has preferred appeals. They have been heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Few basic facts necessary for disposal of these appeals may now be noted. 4. The petitioner, who was working as Senior Grade Stenographer (Selection Grade Private Secretary) in the Gauhati High Court, applied for the post of Private Secretary in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench and was appointed as such vide order dated 15.11.89 (Annexure 1). Accordingly petitioner's services were placed at the disposal of CAT vide order dated 29.11.1989 for a period of one year of deputation basis. The petitioner was released in the afternoon of 30.11.89 and joined CAT, Patna Bench on 11.12.89 (FN). 5. The petitioner on 25.4.90 applied to the CAT Principal Bench for appointment in the post of Deputy Registrar, in Guwahali Bench of the Tribunal. In response thereto, the petitioner was informed that as per Recruitment Rules for the post Deputy Registrar, the petitioner, not being a Law Graduate, was not eligible. However, he was asked to seek absorption in the post of Section Officer/Private Secretary in the Tribunal, since being a Law Graduate was not an essential qualification for promotion to the post of PS (Annexure 3), the petitioner accordingly applied for absorption in the post of PS. The High Court also issued No Objection Certificate in this regard. The case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC. Since the petitioner was already holding the post of Selection Grade PS, his absorption in the post of PS was not permissible under the rules. However, the petitioner was recommended to the Govt of India for appointment as Deputy Registrar and he was appointed as such, vide order dated 21st September, 1990 (Annexure 5). Accordingly the petitioner joined Guwahati Bench as Deputy Registrar on 5.11.90. However, the petitioner was recommended to the Govt of India for appointment as Deputy Registrar and he was appointed as such, vide order dated 21st September, 1990 (Annexure 5). Accordingly the petitioner joined Guwahati Bench as Deputy Registrar on 5.11.90. On 6.5.91 the petitioner applied for absorption in the post of DR which was also duly recommended by the then Vice Chairman (Annexure 7) and the High Court also issued No Objection Certificate in this regard. 6. Petitioner's period of deputation was extended from time to time, and ultimately it was extended upto 30.11.93. It may be noted that as per High Court Rules, an employee could be allowed to remain on deputation only for a period of two years. His two years period came to an end on 30.11.91, on request by CAT, another term of two years was allowed, so as to enable completion of absorption process of the petitioner in CAT. 7. A DPC meeting was held on 6.7.92 for considering petitioner's case. As the petitioner was not a Law Graduate, the Government of India was requested to relax the qualification of LL.B. Degree. The Government of India relaxed the LL.B. qualification vide order No.A-1/12020/6/92-AT dated 6.9.93 after a lapse of 15 months, though as per Standing Order of the Government it should have been done within a period of three months from the date of holding of the DPC, i.e. 6.7.92 (vide 16.5.1 Swamy's Compilation of Seniority & Promotion). 8. On receipt of the relaxation order the Chairman, CAT (respondent No.2) constituted a fresh DPC to complete the absorption process but the same could not be completed as petitioner's ACRs for the period 1.4.92 to 31.3.93 was withheld by the Vice Chairman, although as per rule duly completed ACR, should be sent to the Principal Bench by the first week of May each year. The Vice Chairman, Guwahati Bench was therefore reminded to send the ACR, but the reminders were not attended to and ultimately it could be sent only on 8.11.93 (Annexure 20 and 21). 9. As another development, the Registrar, Gauhati High Court in the meantime issued letter dated 16.11.93 (Annexure 22) stating that the period of petitioner's deputation will not be extended beyond 30.11.93 and requested to release the petitioner. 9. As another development, the Registrar, Gauhati High Court in the meantime issued letter dated 16.11.93 (Annexure 22) stating that the period of petitioner's deputation will not be extended beyond 30.11.93 and requested to release the petitioner. On receipt of the aforesaid communication the respondent No.4, it is contended by the petitioner that though not authorised to do so, and biased as he was, arbitrarily released the petitioner on 17.11.93 with effect from 30.11.93 (AN), thus frustrating the absorption process. 10. The petitioner left with no choice, submitted application for extension of deputation period for completion of the absorption process. The Registrar, CAT, Principal Bench vide letter dated 18/19.11.93 (Annexure 25) wrote a DO letter to the Registrar, Gauhati High Court for extension of the deputation period till May, 1994 stating the reasons which delayed the absorption process. It was also pointedly mentioned that in petitioner's case the requirement of having LL.B. Degree had been relaxed by the Government. 11. In this disturbed state of mind, the petitioner out of sheer frustration submitted an application on 23.11.93 (Annexure 26) stating that if at all it was not possible to extend his deputation period beyond 30.11.93, he was prepared to seek voluntary retirement from the High Court service with effect from 1.12.93. However, he submitted another application on 30.11.93 through the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench (Annexure 28) for withdrawal of the aforesaid letter of voluntary retirement. As it subsequently came to light that the letter of voluntary retirement was accepted by the High Court on 23.11.93, itself, and accordingly the subsequent prayer for withdrawal was also rejected. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court, with the following prayers : (1) The petitioner be declared to have been permanently absorbed in the post of Deputy Registrar of CAT, consequently the impugned released order dated 17.11.93 (Annexure 24) be quashed. (2) The impugned orders passed by the Registrar, Gauhati High Court dated 16.11.93 (Annexure 22) and dated 26.11.93 (Annexure 30) and also 12.11.94 (Annexure 29), refusing extension of the term of deputation, allowing him to go on voluntary retirement, and further rejecting his representation dated 30.11.93 be quashed. 12. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment rejected the first relief and while granting the second, has refused, him the pay from 1st December, 1993 till the date of his joining service in the High Court. 13. 12. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment rejected the first relief and while granting the second, has refused, him the pay from 1st December, 1993 till the date of his joining service in the High Court. 13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the petitioner as well as the High Court has preferred separate appeals. 14. Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant has emphasised the point, that first and foremost, the petitioner should have been declared to have been permanently absorbed as Deputy Registrar by CAT and the release order dated 17.11.93 (Annexure 24) should have been quashed. His next contention was at any rate, the petitioner should have been awarded his full ray from 1.12.1993, of which he has been erroneously deprived. 15. Mr. Channa, learned counsel appearing for the High Court, on the other hand, defended the order so far as the deprivation of salary is concerned. As for absorption, he submitted that the High Court had no objection, if the petitioner was permanently .absorbed by the CAT. 16. Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, maintained that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner could not be absorbed as the High Court refused to further extend his term of deputation so as to enable the CAT to complete the process of absorption. 17. As the controversy veers around petitioner's permanent absorption in service, the question raised in these appeals is, whether the writ petitioner-appellant can claim permanent absorption as a matter of right, and whether he is a entitled to a declaration that he should be treated as absorbed, and regularised in the post of Deputy Registrar ? 18. The only reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for refusing this relief is that the appellant writ petitioner could not be absorbed without 'No Objection' from the parent department, that is, the High Court. To quote in his own words : "The last question to be decided is whether the petitioner can claim absorption in the Tribunal. Definitely the Tribunal has got its own procedure for making an appointment or absorption of an employee from other department. Besides, the Tribunal cannot absorb an employee of other department without formal permission or no objection from the parent department." 19. Learned Standing Counsel for Union of India has submitted that absorption depends on several factors. Definitely the Tribunal has got its own procedure for making an appointment or absorption of an employee from other department. Besides, the Tribunal cannot absorb an employee of other department without formal permission or no objection from the parent department." 19. Learned Standing Counsel for Union of India has submitted that absorption depends on several factors. There is really speaking no controversy on facts except absorption, as would be seen from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Union of India. Averments made by the writ petitioner in para 1, 3, 5,6,7, 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,19 and 20 are specifically admitted on by implication, as no comments in paras 21 to 34, 36 are also virtually admitted as they relate to exchange of correspondences between the High Court and the Tribunal, and the writ petitioner. The remaining paragraphs either do not relate to answering respondents Union of India, or sought to be contested on the point of absorption. 20. The following extract from para 37 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Union of India, contains the gist of their case. "It is however, categorically denied that delay in absorption had taken place due to inaction or any malafide. The petitioner did not possess degree in law and thus first of all it was necessary to have the rules relaxed with the approval of the competent authority. His ACRs were not available till the second week of November, 1993. The proposal before Departmental Promotion Committee could hardly be placed unless all the conditions were satisfied. While the proposal to consider his absorption was under examination, the lending Department did not agree to extend the term of deputation and consequently respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 were left with no choice but to repatriate him." 21. In the same vein the Union of India has pleaded in para 43 : "The answering respondents however further beg to submit that it is not true that the petitioner was eligible in all respect for absorption as Deputy Registrar in the Central Administrative Tribunal under its Group 'A' posts, Recruitment Rules, 1988. The petitioner was not a Law Graduate which is an essential qualification. The appropriate appointing authority (Central Government) was competent to take decision to relax qualification or otherwise. The petitioner was not a Law Graduate which is an essential qualification. The appropriate appointing authority (Central Government) was competent to take decision to relax qualification or otherwise. The relaxation order was received on 6.9.93 but before Departmental Promotion Committee could meet and matter would have processed further, the lending authority refused to extend the period of deputation resulting in repatriation of the petitioner on 17.11.93....... The answering respondents further beg to submit that deputationist cannot be deemed to have been appointed on a regular basis until and unless he is absorbed in that post as per provision of the Recruitment Rules and after having complied with the requisite procedure. Moreover, absorption cannot be claimed or demanded as a matter of course or right." 22. These very points have been reiterated by the learned Standing Counsel further relying and placing on record an office memorandum dated 29.4.88 containing consolidated instructions/orders, regarding payment of Deputation (duty) Allowance to employees transferred on iieutation to ex-cadre posts under the Government. 23. Mr. Lahiri submitted that petitioner was from the very beginning, appointed and not merely transferred on deputation, as is evident from letter dated 15.11.89, Annexure 1 addressed by the Deputy Registrar, CAT to the Registrar (Admn) of the Gauhati High Court. This letter is reproduced below for ready reference. "No.2/11l/86-Estt/21621 Confidential Central Administrative Tribunal By Regd. A/D. Patna Bench 88-A, Sri Krishna Nagar, Patna - 800 001. To, The Registrar (Administrative) Gauhati High Court, Gauhati - 781 001. Sub : Appointment of Shri SP Singh to the post of Private Secretary in the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Sir, I am directed to say that Hon'ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi has approved the appointment of Shri SP Singh to the post of Private Secretary in this Bench on deputation basis initially for a period of one year from the date he assumed charge of the post in this Bench. 2. I am, therefore, to request that Shri SP Singh may be directed to report for joining to this Bench as early as possible. 3. The Character Roll (in original) of Shri SP Singh is also returned herewith. Yours faithfully Sd/- (PN Prasad), Deputy Registrar, (A) Encl: As above : Copy to : 1. Deputy Registrar (A) Principal Bench, Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi -1 with reference to the letter No. 1/75/86-Estt dated 25.10.89 for information. 3. The Character Roll (in original) of Shri SP Singh is also returned herewith. Yours faithfully Sd/- (PN Prasad), Deputy Registrar, (A) Encl: As above : Copy to : 1. Deputy Registrar (A) Principal Bench, Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi -1 with reference to the letter No. 1/75/86-Estt dated 25.10.89 for information. 2. Copy to Shri SP Singh, Seniorgrade Stenographer, High Court, Gauhati - 7810 01 for information. Sd/- (PN Prasad) Deputy Registrar (A)." 24. The deputation was only for one year. Annexure 2 made it clear that the term of deputation of Shri SP Singh will be governed by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pers and Trg) ON No.2/12/87-Estt(PartII) dated 29.4.88 as amended from time to time. He is allowed to draw his grade pay in the parent office plus other allowances admissible thereon. 25. When the question of appointing the petitioner to the post of Deputy Registrar came for consideration, the petitioner was advised as/per letter dated 8.5.90, Annexure 3 to first seek absorption to the post of Section Officer, as he was not a Law Graduate, under the Recruitment Rules, for the post of Deputy Registrar, he was not eligible for being once absorbed, as Section Officer, could be considered for promotion as Deputy Registrar. Accordingly, the process of absorption started vide Annexure 4, dated 28.5.90 the petitioner was in fact appointed as Deputy Registrar initially for one year albeit on deputation basis, as per order dated 21.9.90, Annexure 5. The High Court also gave its 'No Objection' vide letter dated 26.12.90, Annexure 6. Here the matter, so far as the High Court was concerned, reached a concluded stage. Petitioners ACRs were sent to High Court for his permanent absorption vide letter dated 21.6.91, Annexure 7 and the High Court again by letter dated 29.1.92, Annexure 9 informed the Tribunal that the High Court had no objection if the petitioner was permanently absorbed as Deputy Registrar in the Tribunal, within a period of one month which was too short a period to complete process and the High Court was therefore requested to extend the time - "but it was an indefinite time till such time the DPC clears the case of Shri Singh for absorption" (see letter dated 12.2.92, Annexure 10), and but natural that no official body or institution can wait for such indefinite time. An important fact which needs to be noted here is the recommendation made by the DPC by its meeting held on 6.7.92 for relaxation of qualification of holding a law degree and forwarded to the Union of India on 29.7.92, as can be gathered from the DO letter dated 19.11.93, Annexure 25 and the relaxation in qualification was in fact granted in petitioner's case although belatedly on 6.9.93. It is not in dispute that the process of absorption was virtually complete but for the non-submission of petitioner's ACRs by the Vice Chairman, CAT, Guwahati Bench, respondent No.4, who purposefully withheld the same in his personnel custody and despite reminders and communications it was not sent. The petitioner is not to be blamed either for the delay or the withholding of the ACRs by the Vice Chairman. 26. Having covered the factual aspect as noted above, we now proceed to examine the consolidated instructions dated 29.4.88 as referred to in the petitioner's appointment order dated 14.12.89, Annexure 2. Learned Standing Counsel has placed on record a photostate copy of the circular dated 29.4.88 containing instructions. The relevant instructions are quoted below : "3. Scope of Admissibility : 3.1. The term 'deputation' will cover only appointments made by transfer on a temporary basis to other posts in the same or other departments/offices of the Central Government provided the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment and is in the public interest. 3.2. The question whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not will be decided by the authority which controls the service or the post from which the employee is transferred. 3.3. Appointments of serving Government servants made either by promotion or by direct recruitment with open market candidates, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, will not be regarded as 'deputation'. 3.4. Permanent appointments made by transfer will also not be treated as 'deputation'." 27. Now reading the appointment order dated 15.11.89, Annexure 1, petitioner's appointment as Private Secretary was approved by the CAT, initially on deputation basis. He was eventually promoted as Deputy Registrar, Now promotion during the period of deputation, is governed by paragraph 9 of the instructions, which reads as follows : "9. Promotion during period of deputation : 9.1. Now reading the appointment order dated 15.11.89, Annexure 1, petitioner's appointment as Private Secretary was approved by the CAT, initially on deputation basis. He was eventually promoted as Deputy Registrar, Now promotion during the period of deputation, is governed by paragraph 9 of the instructions, which reads as follows : "9. Promotion during period of deputation : 9.1. When an employee already on deputation is to be promoted/appointed to another post by the borrowing authority, the borrowing authority should obtain the concurrence of the lending authority prior to the promotion/ appointment." 28. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was absorbed in permanent service, otherwise how can there be this promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar. The fact that he was considered for promotion is itself indicative that he was absorbed in service no longer on deputation. The correspondences, resting with letter dated 15.9.92, Annexure 14, which reads as d follows clearly indicates that the process of not only absorption but also petitioner's transfer from Guwahati to Patna Bench of the Tribunal had reached conclusive stage : "I am directed to refer to Hon'ble Vice Chairman DO letter No.B-9/85/Pt.IV/1030 dated 11.8.92 addressed to Hon'ble Chairman, on the subject mentioned above and to say that the proposal for absorption in respect of Shri SP Singh, Deputy Registrar is under process and consideration of the Government. As soon as the case is finalised, the intimation decision in this regard will be intimated to you......" 29. Thereafter the High Court intimated the Tribunal that petitioner's deputation was going to expire on 1.12.92, he was directed to join by 28th February, 1993, otherwise, his lien would be treated as suspended. The matter of absorption was under process. The Registrar of the High Court was informed of it by letter dated 4.2.93, Annexure 16 and requested to extend the petitioner's deputation for the fourth year. It was accordingly extended vide Annexure 17, while the matter was all along under consideration, an urgent message was sent to the Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal to sent the petitioner's ACRs for the period 1.4.92 to 31.3.93 but the ACRs could not be sent as the Vice Chairman withhold it, who was in States at that time and the record was in his personal custody. It may be noted that it was only the petitioner' s ACRs that was withheld. 30. It may be noted that it was only the petitioner' s ACRs that was withheld. 30. Learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India referring to Annexure 23 submitted that it was the petitioner himself who requested to release him. This letter can and should not be read in isolation and the factual background should not be lost sight of. On one hand, the desk was cleared for absorption and on the other, the Vice Chairman had withheld the ACRs to petitioner's detriment. 31. When the condition of qualification was relaxed for promotion, the petitioner could not have foreseen by any stretch of imagination that his ACRs would not be sent and it was meant for promotion, which could not have taken place unless the petitioner was absorbed as Seniorgrade Stenographer. At this stage, it would be pertinent to refer to letter dated 8.5.90, Annexure 3, written by Joint Registrar of the Principal Bench, CAT to Deputy Registrar, CAT, Patna Bench. It reads as follows : "Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench F.No.l.58/87/Estt/3122 Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg New Delhi 110 001. Dated 8.5.90 To, The Deputy Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, 88-A, BM Enterprises, Srikrishna Nagar, Patna Sub : Appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar at Gauhati Bench - reg. Sir, I am directed to refer to the correspondence resting with application dated 25.4.90 Shri SP Singh Private Secretary, Patna Bench, on the subject noted above and to say that as per Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Registrar, Shri SP Singh, not being Law Graduate, is not eligible for consideration to the post of Deputy Registrar. However he can seek absorption to the post of Section Officer/Private Secretary in the Tribunal and thereafter can be considered for promotion to the aforesaid post since Law Graduate is not an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar. He can be considered for promotion only when he is absorbed in the Tribunal, (emphasis supplied) This issues with the approval of the Hon'ble Vice Chairman. Yours faithfully Sd/- (DR Gupta), Joint Registrar." 32. Now this letter and the relaxation of qualification for the promotion post of Deputy Registrar, the question of absorption not only stands concluded but also raises a legitimate expectation in the minds of the candidate that he would be promoted. Yours faithfully Sd/- (DR Gupta), Joint Registrar." 32. Now this letter and the relaxation of qualification for the promotion post of Deputy Registrar, the question of absorption not only stands concluded but also raises a legitimate expectation in the minds of the candidate that he would be promoted. Haulsbury's Law of England, Fourth Edition, Vol I (1), page 151, paragraph 81 is to the following effect: "A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation or from consistent past practice." 33. Mr. Lafairi argued that as the case of the petitioner was not considered by the DPC in 1992 and the DPC found him suitable in all respects and the only difficulty was that he was not having a LL.B. Degree and the same having been relaxed on the recommendations of the DPC, the petitioner should be deemed to have been regularised. But in any case, the process which was pending for a long time should be allowed to be completed for the ends of justice and High Court should be directed to extend the deputation period for completion of the absorption process after quashing the order of acceptance of the voluntary retirement 34. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. VS Balakrishnan, 1994 Suppl (4) SCC 204, has recognised the theory of deemed option being given by Government servants on deputation even in cases those who decline to exercise such option. In the instant case, the petitioner was all along taken and treated as absorbed in the post of a Senior Grade Stenographer. It was only at the promotional stage that the confusion was created, that too, not because of the petitioner but solely due to non submission of his ACRs. 35. Respondent No.4 completed the CR in respect of all other officers of the Bench, including the then Registrar, CAT, Guwahati Bench (the reporting officer of the petitioner) and sent the same to the Principal Bench, but purposely withheld the CR of the petitioner and kept the same in his personal custody in flagrant violation of the Standing Order of the Government of India on the subject. 36. 36. Learned Standing Counsel for Union of India argued that absorption in the CAT cannot be taken as a matter of right, and since the High Court was not willing to extend the period of deputation, the Tribunal could not be compelled to absorb the petitioner. 37. There is an inherent fallacy in this argument. Unless the petitioner was taken as absorbed, the question of his promotion as Deputy Registrar would not have arisen. The letter dated 8/11.5.90, Annexure 3, as quoted above, unmistakably points to the fact that the petitioner was asked and advised to get himself absorbed as Senior Grade Stenographer before he could be considered for promotion as Deputy Registrar. It was at this promotional stage, for which the process had already been commenced, that 'No Objection Certificate' was sought and obtained from the High Court as per Annexure 6, thus so far as the High Court was concerned, all that was necessary to be done was completed. It may be noted here that the rule requiring a degree in law was also relaxed by the respondent Tribunal in the process of regularisation of the appellant-writ petitioner's appointment on promotion as Deputy Registrar. In view of these glaring facts the argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted and must therefore be rejected. 38. Mr. Chaliha, learned counsel appearing for the Registrar, High Court submits that the writ petitioner being on deputation, which was about to expire, the petitioner having sought voluntary retirement and its subsequent withdrawal, only with a view to continue in service as Deputy Registrar in the Tribunal, the same cannot be treated as a valid letter of withdrawal and High Court having accepted the petitioner's option, the same become final and irrevocable under FR 56 (c). 39. The Supreme Court in Balram Gupta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2354 has held that according approval to voluntary retirement as deserved and intimated by a Govt servant, is not an ipse-dixit of the authority, who has the power to accord approval, and must act reasonably and rationally. 40. The petitioner had applied for the post through proper channel. In response to an advertisement issued by the respondent CAT for filling up the post of Private Secretary in different Branches of the Tribunal, his application was forwarded by the High Court, and he was appointed as such vide letter dated 15.11.89, Annexure 1. 40. The petitioner had applied for the post through proper channel. In response to an advertisement issued by the respondent CAT for filling up the post of Private Secretary in different Branches of the Tribunal, his application was forwarded by the High Court, and he was appointed as such vide letter dated 15.11.89, Annexure 1. Going through the documents filed by the petitioner although he was initially treated as on deputation, his appointment was in a clear vacancy and the use of the term deputation which continued for quite some till December, 1990 when the High Court vide Annexure 6 had in clear and categorical terms indicated that it had no objection to petitioner's appointment as Deputy Registrar. The camouflage, sought to be created thereafter as regards deputation was wholly uncalled for. The petitioner was in fact absorbed and on fulfilment of such condition of absorption he was being considered for promotion as Deputy Registrar for which the parent department, that is, the High Court had given,its consent by issuing the 'No Objection' letter. The petitioner, in the eye of law, stood absorbed in the service of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the question of issuing the impugned release order dated 17th November, 1993, Annexure 24, does not arise and the same cannot be sustained. It is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 41. The learned Single Judge has in his order, in paragraph 18, while dealing with the question of absorption has stated : "The last question to be decided is whether the petitioner can claim absorption in the Tribunal. Definitely the Tribunal has got its own procedure for making an appointment or absorption of an employee from other department. Besides, the Tribunal cannot absorb an employee of other department without formal permission or no objection from the parent department." 42. Definitely the Tribunal has got its own procedure for making an appointment or absorption of an employee from other department. Besides, the Tribunal cannot absorb an employee of other department without formal permission or no objection from the parent department." 42. Going by the reasoning of the learned Single Judge true, that the Tribunal could not absorb without formal permission or 'No Objection' from the parent department, but what has escaped notice is the fact that the parent department, viz, the High Court had in fact conveyed its 'No Objection' to the Tribunal in uncertain terms, vide letter dated 26.12.90 Annexure 6, which reads as follows : "In inviting a reference to your office order number quoted above, I am directed to say that this Registry has no objection to the appointment of Shri SP Singh, Senior Grade Stenographer of this Hon'ble High Court as Deputy Registrar in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The period of deputation of Shri Singh is extended for a further period of one year wef 1.12.90." 43. Rule 5 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Recruitment Rules, which deals with absorption and regularisation of existing employees reads as follows: "Absorption/regularisation of existing employees : (1) Nothwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of these rules, the persons holding the posts of Registrar (Principal Bench), Registrar, other Benches, Joint Registrars and Deputy Registrars on the date of commencement of the rules either on transfer or on deputation basis and who fulfil the qualifications and experience laid down in the rules and who are considered suitable by Departmental Promotion Committee shall be eligible for absorption/regularisation in the respective grade subject to condition that such persons exercise their option for the absorption and that their parent Departments do not have any objection to their being absorbed in the Tribunal." 44. Having absorbed the petitioner as Senior Grade Stenographer, his case was considered for promotion as Deputy Registrar, he was in fact appointed as Deputy Registrar, so much so, the condition of possessing a law degree was also relaxed, as contemplated by Rule 7, really speaking it is a matter of regularisation, of petitioner's promotion as Deputy Registrar, which could not be done for non-submission of ACRs by the Vice Chairman, it was that stage the impugned order dated 17.11.93, Annexure 24, was passed, which is not supportable either on facts or in law. 45. 45. In view of the foregoing discussion the release order dated 17.11.93, Annexure 24, passed by the Vice Chairman, respondent No.4, is liable to be quashed, it is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the petitioner is reinstated in the post from which he was relieved. The petitioner is held to be entitled to regularisation, as Deputy Registrar and the respondents are directed to regularise him in service as Deputy Registrar, extending and paying all consequential benefits, accruing to him as per rules. Considering the time gap, if required, a supernumerary post of Deputy Registrar be created. 46. The impugned judgment and order as passed by the learned Single Judge is reversed as indicated above. Writ Appeal No.551 of 1995, stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Writ Appeal No.552 of 1995, filed by the High Court, stands disposed in terms indicated above, and allowed to that extent. 47. As for the period the petitioner has worked in the High Court in compliance of the writ issued by the learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.95, the legal maxim - 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit' will be applied.