JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J. This appeal is directed against an order and judgment dated 19.3.1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ petitioners claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs : "(a) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue their duties, who are contingent workers and working in the office of the respondents nos. 1 to 4 in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Government Order; (b) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued and directing the respondents to certify and transmit the records of the case to this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the purported order of the respondents regarding the appointment of the other persons and to stop the petitioners duty who are contingent workers;" was dismissed. Admittedly the petitioners were appointed as Home Guard. Such appointment was made under the provision of the West Bengal Home Guards Act, 1962. Posts of Home Guard were created by the Superintendent of Police in terms of section 3 of the said Act. A bare perusal of the provisions of the said Act would show that their services are governed in terms thereof. They would be under the control of the authority provided for therein in terms of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. They were deputed for discharging functions of the guards in Oil & Natural Gas Commission. 2. The petitioners, appellants herein, allegedly were working there for about 3 years and 4 months. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Trial Judge was wrong in dismissing the writ application in so far as His Lordship failed to take into consideration the decision reported in 1993 (2) CLJ 303 (Jiban Krishna Das & Ors. vs. State of W.B. & Ors.). 4. In that case a Division Bench of this court was considering a question as to whether a deputationist can claim regularisation of service while sent on deputation. The learned Judge appears to have relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jacob M. Puthuparambil vs. Kerala Water Authority, reported in AIR 1990 SC 2228 . 4. In that case a Division Bench of this court was considering a question as to whether a deputationist can claim regularisation of service while sent on deputation. The learned Judge appears to have relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jacob M. Puthuparambil vs. Kerala Water Authority, reported in AIR 1990 SC 2228 . The said decision has been distinguished by the Supreme Court in many cases on the ground that therein there existed statutory provision for regulatisation of services of the employees. In absence of such statutory provision regularisation which is not a mode of appointment cannot be allowed. In fact, the Apex Court in various decisions has held that such appointment by way of regularisation in violation of the statutory provision would be illegal. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of B.N. Nagarjan vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 1979 (3) SCR 937 ; R.N. Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmia, reported in 1972 (2) SCR, 799 and Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1995 SC 962 . 5. In fact Chakraborty, J. who was a party to the said decision in the case of Jiban Krishna Das (supra) in the case reported in 1996 Lab. I.C. 156 keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1995 SC 962 refused to follow the aforementioned decision himself. 6. Apart from the fact that a person when sent on deputation and that too whose services are governed by the provision of a statute cannot be directed to be permanently absorbed by a Foreign Employer, suffice it to point out that the prayer of the petitioners appears to be wholly misconceived one. In absence of any statute, statutory rule or policy decision nobody can claim regularisation in services. 7. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Inder Singh & Ors. reported in 1997 (8) SCC 372 wherein it has been held : ‘18.The concept of "Deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple word "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple word "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables, as the case may be’. 8. As regard the claim of the petitioners for being regularised in the service only on the ground that they were working in the O.N.G.C. for a sufficient time, suffice it to point out that in the case reported in AIR 1995 SC 962 it has been clearly stated that only because a person who is in continuous service the same cannot be the ground for regular appointment. This aspect of the matter has also been considered in the case reported in 1998 (2) CHN 241 . 9. For the reason aforementioned, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. S.N. Bhattacharjee, J.: I agree. Appeal is dismissed.