Judgment N. Roy, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Both these writ applications involve identical questions of law and facts and, accordingly, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. A common question has been canvassed at the bar by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that even though the petitioners were posted at the Principals in the Navoday Vidyalayas in question on deputation,they could not have been repatriated on certain allegations to their parent schools. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that in view of the allegations levelled against the petitioners they could have been repatriated only after following the principles of natural justice and in any view of the matter a notice was required to be served upon the petitioners. 5. In both these writ applications counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioners since were on deputation they had no right to the post in question and according to the terms and conditions, on which they were deputed, they could have been withdrawn prematurely also. It is further submitted that even if there were certain charges against the petitioners and since they had no right to the post in question, no question of service of notice arises. 6. In both these writ applications, it appears that the petitioners have been repatriated from the Navoday vidayalays in question to their parent schools. It further appears that vide orders as contained in Annexure-1, the petitioners were appointed as the Principals in the Navoday Vidyalayas in question on deputation with certain terms. It further appears that the petitioners had agreed to the terms and conditions as imposed by the respondents. 7. Having heard Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioners have no right to the post in question and they cannot agitate that they should have been noticed first before passing of the orders withdrawing them from the Navoday Vidyalayas in question. 8. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently urged that in view of the allegations levelled against the petitioners the principles of natural justice should have been followed. 9. Mr. 8. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently urged that in view of the allegations levelled against the petitioners the principles of natural justice should have been followed. 9. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that since the petitioners had no right to the post in question, the principles of natural justice cannot be extended in their case. 10. The question, which has been convassed at bar is no more res integra and it has already been settled by the several decisions of the Apex Court. In the case of Hukam Chand Khundia Vs. Chandigarh Administration and another, reported in (1995) 6 Supreme Court cases 534, the Apex Court, while dealing with the case of probationers held that they had no right to the post and even if they were being removed/terminated from their service on certain allegations the principles of natural justice cannot be extended to their case. Likewise, in the case of Ratilal B. Soni and others V/s. State of Gujarat and others, reported in A. I. R.1990 Supreme Court 1132, similar view has been taken by the apex Court and the Apex Court has held that if an employee is posted on deputation he has no right to the post and he cannot claim to remain on the post as such as a matter of right 11. Applying the principles already laid down in the aforementioned cases, I hold that in these two writ applications also the petitioners have no right to the post in question and they cannot make a grievance against the order of repatriation. 12. These writ applications, therefore, are without merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. 13. However, it is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are not being allowed to join in their parent schools, from where they were sent on deputation. 14. In this regard, it is made clear that since the petitioners have been withdrawn from the Navoday Vidyalayas in question they shall be entitled for their postings in their parent schools, from where they were sent on deputation forthwith. 15. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to get their salary for the period they have worked in the Navodaya Vidyalayas in question. 15. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to get their salary for the period they have worked in the Navodaya Vidyalayas in question. It is further submitted that even though the petitioners have been relieved from the Navodaya Vidyalayas in question and since they are not being allowed to join their parent schools, they are entitled to get their salary. 16. Respondents concerned in these two writ applications are directed to pay the salary to the petitioners for the period already they have worked in the Navodaya Vidyalayas in question. The petitioners shall further be entitled to get their salary from their parent schools from where they were sent on deputation. No orders as to costs. Writ Applications Dismissed.