S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal depicts sorry state of affairs. The admitted fact of the matter is as follows: ( 2 ) THE appellant was appointed as a Security Sub-Inspector of the Andhra pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation for the sake of brevity) on or about 6-8-1976 and was subsequently promoted as Chief Security Inspector on 29-5-1981. The appellant herein was granted permission for being deputed to Tirumala Tirupathi devasthanams ( ttd for short ). On 30-3-1992 the TTD requested the Corporation to send the appellant on deputation and by an order dated 30-4-1992 he was deputed to ttd for a period of three years. An office order was passed by TTD on 16-5-1992, in terms whereof the appellant was appointed as a Vigilance Inspector with effect from 11-5-1992. The appellant later made a representation for his permanent absorption in TTD. The said representation was placed before the Trust Board and by a resolution bearing No. 569 dated 18-11-1992 such approval was granted, however, subject to grant of a No Objection Certificate by the corporation. The Corporation admittedly granted a No Objection Certificate, pursuant whereto the appellant was transferred on permanent basis to TTD with effect from 16-5-1992. ( 3 ) IN terms of the Tirumala Tirupathi devasthanams Service Rules, 1989 ( the rules for brevity) the appointment of the appellant herein in TTD on permanent basis has to be approved by the State government. It is not in dispute that the state approved such transfer of the appellant on permanent basis on 1-12-1993 pursuant to the proposal made in that behalf by the TTD on 5-1-1993. The appellant was absorbed with effect from 30-12-1993 as assistant Vigilance and Security Officer grade-II. Curiously enough, the Trust board of TTD in its Resolution No. 260 dated 10-8-1995 decided to repatriate the appellant to his parent department holding that absorption of the appellant herein is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the apex Court in R. Suryanarayana Mitrthy v. The Principal Secretary to Government revenue (Endowments-III) Department, govt. of A. P. and others, Unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in WA. No. 1166 of 1986 dated 9-11-1987 and also of the apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 184/88 dated 17-8-1994. of A. P. and others, Unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in WA. No. 1166 of 1986 dated 9-11-1987 and also of the apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 184/88 dated 17-8-1994. ( 4 ) IT appears that the aforementioned proposal of TTD was sent to the Corporation and the latter relying on or on the basis of the same posted the appellant at vizianagaram Zone. It, however, now stands admitted that the appellant never joined the said post. ( 5 ) APPREHENDING that he would be sent back to the services of the Corporation, the appellant herein filed the aforementioned writ petition claiming inter alia the following reliefs:. . . . . . . . . to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the resolution No. 888, dated 7/8-12-1994 and resolution No. 260, dated 10-9-1995 of the 1st respondent as illegal, null and void and to quash the same and to pass such other order or orders as this hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 6 ) THE only question which was raised by the TTD before the learned single judge was that having regard to the recruitment rules, the permanent absorption of the appellant was contrary to the conditions of service. In support of the said contention reliance has been placed on a division Bench decision of this Court in r. Suryanarayana Mitrthy (supra ). The learned single Judge, relying on the aforementioned decision, dismissed the writ petition. ( 7 ) M r. Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that having regard to the fact that the appellant has since retired on 30-4-2000 while he was in service of the TTD, all retiral benefits should be paid to him. The learned Counsel in support of the said contention has strongly relied upon a decision of the apex Court in umapati Choudhary v. Stale of Bihar, 1999 scc (Lands) 902. ( 8 ) MR. The learned Counsel in support of the said contention has strongly relied upon a decision of the apex Court in umapati Choudhary v. Stale of Bihar, 1999 scc (Lands) 902. ( 8 ) MR. M. Adinarayana Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the TTD, has drawn our attention to the statements made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter- affidavit filed before us and submitted on the basis thereof that as the resolution of the Board absorbing the appellant in the services of the TTD was cancelled and an order of the posting has been given to the appellant by the Corporation, the appellant herein cannot derive any retiral benefits from ttd. According to the learned Counsel, the initial appointment of the appellant being contrary to the statutory rules, this case is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in R. Suryanarayana murthy (supra ). ( 9 ) IN order to consolidate and amend the (aw relating to the administration and governance of Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh the State enacted the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the act for the sake of brevity ). Chapter XIV of the Aet deals with Tirumala Timpathi devasthanams. Section 95 of the Act speaks about the application of the Act to Tirumala tirupathi Devasthanams and Section 96 about constitution of the Tirumala Tirupathi devasthanams Board". Section 97 of the act contemplates about the powers and functions of the Board wherein the Board shall in addition to the powers conferred and functions entrusted to it by the Act exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed in regard to matters of policy and general superintendence and review in relation to the Administration of TTD having due regard to public interest and the services and amenities to be provided to and welfare safety measures to be undertaken for the pilgrims, devotees and worshippers resorting to TTD. ( 10 ) IN terms of Section 97-A a committee called tirumala Tirupathi devasthanams Management Committee was constituted which inter alia is entitled to exercise the general superintendence and control over the administration of TTD in conformity with the policy laid down by the board. ( 10 ) IN terms of Section 97-A a committee called tirumala Tirupathi devasthanams Management Committee was constituted which inter alia is entitled to exercise the general superintendence and control over the administration of TTD in conformity with the policy laid down by the board. ( 11 ) SECTION 153 of the Act empowers the State to make rules for carrying of or any of the purposes of the Act. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said power, the state has enacted the Tirumala Tirupathi devasthanams Employees Service rules, 1989. Rule 9 of the Rules provides for appointment and method of recruitment in terms of Annexure-II appended thereto. Chapter 12 of Annexure-II deals with vigilance Department. The Assistant vigilance and Security Officer in terms of the said Rules may be appointed by direct recruitment or by lien of service. It is not in dispute that a person who was appointed as assistant Vigilance and Security Officer grade-II may be promoted as Assistant vigilance and Security Officer Grade-I and then to the post of Vigilance and Security officer. ( 12 ) THE only question, which therefore arises for consideration, is as to whether, despite the appellant s permanent absorption in TTD, the Trust Board can direct the appellant to be repatriated to the services of the Corporation by cancelling its earlier resolution. ( 13 ) THE answer to the said question must be rendered did negative. ( 14 ) IN R. Suryanarayana Murthy (supra) the Court was concerned with the rules framed under 1966 Act. By reason of the provisions of the said Rules the maximum period of deputation could be only for five years. By necessary implication therefore absorption of the deputationist was prohibited. The Division Bench in r. Suryanarayana Murthy (supra) on the aforementioned premise held that the payment of pension on absorption must be in conformity with the recruitment rules. Reliance in this connection has been placed by the Division Bench upon a decision of the apex Court in C. M. Naidu v. State of karnataka, 1977 (I) SLR 194. In the aforementioned decision, the apex Court held: the position, according to the appellant was similar to that an employee who is initially officiating in a position a cadres and is subsequently confirmed in the post. This contention we do not think is well founded. In the aforementioned decision, the apex Court held: the position, according to the appellant was similar to that an employee who is initially officiating in a position a cadres and is subsequently confirmed in the post. This contention we do not think is well founded. It is only by way of deputation that Senior health Inspectors from the State Directorate of Health Services can find place in the cadre of Senior Health Inspectors on the establishment of the Corporation. Not only their entry but also their continuance in the cadre of Senior Health Inspectors on the corporation establishment depends on their being on deputation. There is no scope under the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations for their absorption as permanent Senior health Inspectors under the Corporation. In fact it is impermissible to so. The category of Senior Health Inspector who are regular employees of the Corporation, can be drawn only by promotion from Junior Health inspectors and that to the extent of only one half the number of posts it is, therefore, obvious that without amendment of the cadre and Recruitment Regulations permitting appointment by absorption is really nothing but appointment of Senior health Inspectors drawn from the state Directorate of Health Services as permanent Senior Health Inspectors under the Corporation, the appellants could not be absorbed as permanent Senior Health inspectors on the Corporation establishment. ( 15 ) BEFORE the learned Judges a reference was also made to a decision of the calcutta High Court in WBID Corpn. v. NBIDCE Union, 1985 (1) SLR 257, but despite having that the said decision applies in all fours, having regard to the decision of the apex Court in C. M. Naidu (supra) the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal. ( 16 ) THE decision of the Division Bench in R. Suryanarayana Murthy is clearly distinguishable. In C. M. Naidu (supra), as noticed hereinbefore, no provision existed for permanent absorption. In the instant case, Annexure-11 of the Rules clearly postulates appointment on lien of service. Rule 9, as noticed hereinbefore, refers to appointment. When appointment can be made on lien of service, the same, in our considered view would lead to an inference that such an appointment can be made also by absorbing the deputationist on permanent basis. If such a construction is not made, one of the modes of appointment in terms of Annexure-II of the Rules becomes otiose. When appointment can be made on lien of service, the same, in our considered view would lead to an inference that such an appointment can be made also by absorbing the deputationist on permanent basis. If such a construction is not made, one of the modes of appointment in terms of Annexure-II of the Rules becomes otiose. Such a construction cannot thus be countenanced. ( 17 ) THE 1989 Rules had not been and could not have been examined by the division Bench in R. Suryanarayana Murthy (supra ). ( 18 ) THE learned single Judge, in our opinion, therefore committed a manifest error in not considering the aforementioned statutory provision. The entry of the appellant in the service of the TTD was not a back door one. He was appointed in terms of the resolution adopted by the Board, which, as noticed hereinbefore, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 97 of the Act, had a general power of superintendence. Even admittedly the board s resolution received an acceptance by the State in terms of G. O. Rt. No. 1821, revenue (Ends-III) Department, dated 1-12-1993. Once the appellant was absorbed legally in the services of TTD, the question of his repatriation to his parent department did not and could not arise. ( 19 ) WHEN once the Corporation granted a No Objection Certificate the relationship of master and servant by and between the Corporation and the appellant seized to exist. A new relationship of employer and employee by and between the TTD and the appellant came into being. In such a situation, the appellant can continue to be the employee of the TTD only. ( 20 ) IN Umapati Choudary (supra) the apex Court was considering the similar matter. The appellant therein was holding the post of Controller of Exam inations, Bihar sanskrit Shiksha Board. He was brought on deputation from Kameshwar Singh darbhanga Sanskrit University and his services had been regularized wherefor, permission of the State was also obtained. In the aforementioned situation, it was held: deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (community referred to as the borrowing authority ). In the aforementioned situation, it was held: deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (community referred to as the borrowing authority ). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. IN the case at hand all the three conditions were fulfilled. . . . . . . . . . . ( 21 ) WE have, having regard to the aforementioned decision of the apex Court, no other alternative but to hold that the learned single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition. The same is therefore set aside. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant herein is declared to he an employee of the TTD. ( 22 ) HAVING regard to the fact that during pendency of the writ petition the appellant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, the TTD shall pay all lawful retiral benefits to him. ( 23 ) BEFORE parting with this case, we may place on record the statement of Mr. A. V. Sivaiah, learned Standing Counsel for A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, that the Corporation has already paid all amounts due to the appellant so long as he was in service of the Corporation. No order as to costs.