JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11/12th November, 1997, contained in Annexue-9 to the petition, by which the learned District & Session judge, Rajsamand refused to take petitioner back in the said Judgeship for want of vacancy 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to his case, succinctly stated, are that petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1975 in the District Judgeship, Udaipur. He claims to have been appointed as Stenographer Gr. II with effect from 2-1-79. He was further promoted as Stenographer Gr. II with effect from 2-1-79. He was further promoted as Stenographer Gr. I in the District Judgeship vide order dated 18-11-89. 1As after re-organisation of district Rajasamand, which was carvedt out LP/EQ/R837/98HVM/SGP 1999 Lab. I. 03 VI /T A from district Udaipur, the petitioner was absorbed in the Disrict Judgeship, Rajsamand. In 1993, petitioner made an application for inter-depart- mental transfer as he wanted to serve as Personal Assistant under the Revenue Department. The Revenue Department considered petitioner's application along with No objection Certificate given by the learned District Judge, Rajsamand (respondent No. 4). He was given posting in the Revenue Department vide order dated 3-3-93 with two conditions, namely, (i) that his lien is continued in the parent department; and (ii) the transfer would be subject to approval from the Board of Revenue or if his services are not required, he would be sent back to his parent department in the next six months. His posting in the Revenue Department was extended from time to time subject to two conditions above-referred and he continued till 1997 and ultimately the order dated 4-11-97 (Annexure.8) was passed repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. By the impugned order dated 11/12th November, 1997, the learned District Judge (respondent No. 4) had informed the Board of Revenue that the petitioner cannot be accommodated therein for want of vacancy on the post of Stenographer Gr. I; moreover , he cannot be given posting as Stenographer Gr. I in the District judgeship as he was working on that post temporarily and the Board of Revenue had absorbed him permanently vide its order dated 29-6-94 Anexure 7)"Petitioner was not allowed to join in the District Judgeship, Rajsamand, hence he preferred the writ petition. 3. Heard Mr. Govind Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. R. Singhvi and Mrs. 3. Heard Mr. Govind Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. R. Singhvi and Mrs. R. R. Kanwar for the respondents. 4. Mr. Mathur has urged that as the petitioner had never been permanently absorbed in the Revenue Department and was having the lien in the District Judgeship, the respondent No. 4 ought to have allowed him to work as from time to time he was granted extension with the condition that the petitioner would have the lien in the parent department. The case of the Revenue Department had been that petitioner's lien was continuing in his parent department and he was working in the Revenue Department temporarily with the conditions mentioned in the order of transfer and as his services were no more required, he was relieved from the Revenue Department on 11-11-97 vide Annexure R.2 and the said order had been affixed at his house also on 12-12-97. Reply of the District Judgeship is that as he had been permanently absorbed by the Revenue Department vide order dated 29-4-94, contained in Annexure.7 to the petition, he can- not be allowed to repatriate and as he was not holding the post of Stenographer Gr.I substantively, he cannot be accommodated on the said post. Moreover, there was no vacancy against which petitioner could be accommodated. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no material to substantiate the case of the District Judgeship, Rajsamand that the petitioner had ever been absorbed permanently in the Revenue Department, nor any document had been produced before this Court to show that the lien of the petitioner had ever been terminated from the District Judgeship, nor any notice had been issued to the petitioner for terminating his lien. The transfer of the petitioner to the Revenue Department had always been subject to the condition that he would hold his lien in the parent department, and his transfer would be subject to the approval from the Board of Revenue, and the extension had always been granted to him by the Revenue Department subject to the said two conditions. The transfer of the petitioner to the Revenue Department had always been subject to the condition that he would hold his lien in the parent department, and his transfer would be subject to the approval from the Board of Revenue, and the extension had always been granted to him by the Revenue Department subject to the said two conditions. Thus, no fault can be found with the order of repatriation to the parent department dated 4-11-97 and as the petitioner stood relieved from the Revenue Department on 11-11-97, the Revenue Department cannot be held responsible for keeping the petitioner in service. The respondent No. 4 was under an obligation to allow the petitioner to join in the District Judgeship. If the respondent No. 4, the learned District Judge, was of the view that petitioner was not holding the post of Stenographer Gr. I substantively the issue could have been resolved after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Because even if the petitioner is not entitled to hold the post of Stenographer Gr. I. he cannot be deprived from working as Stenographer Gr. II, as he was definitely holding the said post substantively. 7. Thus, in view of the above, the petition is allowed. The learned District Judge (respondent No. 4) is directed to allow the petitioner to join in the District Judgeship, Rajsamand. However, he would he at liberty to decide the issue of entitlement of the petitioner on the post of Stenographer Grade I. If the learned District Judge proceeds with the said issue, he would conclude it expeditiously, preferably within four week from the date of joining in the District Judgeship. The petitioner shall be entitled to get the arrears of salary from the date he was relieved from the Revenue Department. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******