Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner is a Rationing Inspector working in Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. He had served for about five years on deputation to the Corporation. He has approached this Court challenging Ext. P2 and seeking a declaration that Ext. P1 norms are opposed to R.2A of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects certain Corporations & Companies) Rules, 1970 as that deputation is a mode of appointment. He also seeks a direction restraining the respondents from deputing the petitioner on the basis of Ext. P1 norms. 2. The petitioner had been to this court on an earlier occasion with O.P.No. 18889 of 1998. That original petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 15.9.1998. His representation had been duly considered at length adverting to each of his contentions, in Ext. P2. Ext. P2 adverts to all the points raised by the petitioner in his representation. Therefore, there arise no arbitrariness in rejecting the representation of the petitioner. It is stated that seniority list for the purpose of deputation of personnel's to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation is being prepared. It is also stated that it is necessary to depute personnel's from Civil Supplies Department to the Civil Supplies Corporation for its proper working, as the Civil Supplies Corporation is engaged in the duty of ensuring smooth functioning of public distribution system as well as the Market Investigation especially in the festival seasons. The Government have adopted the deputation as a policy in order to maintain the proper functioning of the Corporation. Therefore, I see no arbitrariness or illegality in Ext. P2. The challenge against Ext. P2, therefore, fails. 3. Ext. P1 contains certain norms in the matter of deputation of employees of Civil Supplies Department to corresponding posts in the Civil Supplies Corporation. The petitioner seeks a declaration that Ext. P1 norms are contrary to the provisions contained in R.2A of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects certain Corporations & Companies) Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. According to the petitioner, Ext. P1 is contrary to the said Rule when Ext. P4 provides for deputation as a mode of appointment. 4. P1 norms are contrary to the provisions contained in R.2A of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects certain Corporations & Companies) Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. According to the petitioner, Ext. P1 is contrary to the said Rule when Ext. P4 provides for deputation as a mode of appointment. 4. As per the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects certain Corporations & Companies) Rules, 1970, direct recruitment to certain companies are brought under the purview of the P.S.C. obviously in terms of Art.321 of the Constitution of India which enables State Legislature to extend the functions of the P.S.C. as respects services of the body corporate constituted by law, owned by the Government. As per S.3(2) thereof, the Board of Directors of the company like Civil Supplies Corporation may consult the Public Service Commission on all matters relating to the methods of recruitment of the employees of that company. Employees may be recruited in the service of a company by direct recruitment, by promotion, by transfer and by deputation in appropriate cases, if the rules of recruitment provide so. Ext. P4 is a Government Order sanctioning the method of recruitment to the service of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. The Rules have been framed by the Corporation and sent for approval of the Government. The Government consulted in terms of S.3(2)(a) of the Act with the P.S.C. and the P.S.C. suggested certain modification, but the Government did not agree. The Government overruled the advise of the P.S.C. and approved the recruitment rules concerning the service of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. As per the recruitment rule so approved, the deputation is one among the method of appointment. So, there is actual consultation with the P.S.C. in terms of S.3(2)(a) of the Act in the matter of formulation of recruitment rules relating to the service of the Corporation. R.2A of the Rules provides that no appointment to the posts brought under the purview of the P.S.C. shall be made, except on the advise of the P.S.C. The said rule thus applies only to the posts brought under the purview of the P.S.C. S.3(2)(b) of the Act provides that the Board of Directors may consult the P.S.C. 'on the principles to be followed in making appointments by direct recruitment of the employees' of that company and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments. Therefore, in the matter of appointment, consultation with P.S. C. is mandatory, only when direct recruitment is resorted to by the Corporation. Deputation is, admittedly by the petitioner, not a direct recruitment. Therefore, for the purpose of ascertaining the suitability of candidates for appointment on deputation, no consultation with P.S.C. is necessary in terms of R.2A read with S.3(2)(b) of the Act. Ext. P4 only provides that deputation i s only one among the method of appointment, but that does not make deputation, a direct recruitment. The petitioner also does not have a case before me that deputation is another form of direct recruitment. If deputation is not direct recruitment, no consultation with P. S. C. is necessary in terms of S.3(2)(b) of the Act read with R.2A of the Rules. 5. Ext. P1 provides only norms for deputation. Deputation is governed by R.140 of Part I KSR. In such circumstances, it is only appropriate for the Government to lay down certain norms in order to avert arbitrariness in the matter of deputation. The petitioner contends that R.9B of the K.S. and S.S.R. also applies in the matter of deputation. The deputation in this case is to a Government owned company. R.9B does not take in a Government owned company, but only statutory corporation. Civil Supplies Corporation is not a statutory corporation. There fore, R.9B does not have any application in this case. So the petitioner cannot get the relief as prayed for in prayer No. 2. 6. The petitioner further seeks a direction restraining the respondents from deputing the petitioner on the basis of Ext. P1 norms. As already mentioned, the petitioner is governed by the conditions of service as contained in K.S.R. as well, which provides for deputation. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek a general direction, restraining the respondents from deputing the petitioner in accordance with Ext. P1 norms. On the other hand, if the deputation order is violative of the said norms, the petitioner can very well assail this. In this case, no deputation order has been passed, so far as the petitioner is concerned. So, the petitioner cannot get a blanket direction as sought for. Whether the seniority rules is violated or not can be considered only at the moment when the order is passed deputing the petitioner. In this case, no deputation order has been passed, so far as the petitioner is concerned. So, the petitioner cannot get a blanket direction as sought for. Whether the seniority rules is violated or not can be considered only at the moment when the order is passed deputing the petitioner. Therefore, this is not an appropriate time to consider whether there would arise any violation of seniority rules as regards the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to all or any of the reliefs prayed for in the original petition. The original petition is dismissed. No costs.