JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the order dated September 1, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No. 302 of 1998. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are ; Opposite party No. 1 initially joined as a Constable in the Orissa State Police Department on December 19, 1972. In the year 1974 he was selected by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the 'C. B. I.') and was placed as Constable in its Orissa Branch at Bhubaneswar on deputation. In the year 1979, opposite party No. 1 was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the State Police Department and on reversion to the parent department, he joined as A.S.I. in the Orissa Police and continued as such till 1986. On July 19, 1986, he was once again sent on deputation to the C. B. I. and was posted at Bhubaneswar. On October 1st, 1987, opposite party No. 1 was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police in the C.B.I.. While the matter stood thus, on December 11, 1991, the C.B.I. authorities considered the case of opposite party No. 1 for permanent absorption in the Central Bureau of Investigation and on April 20, 1992, the authorities requested the Director-General of Police, Orissa, Cuttack as well as the State Government, for according necessary concurrence for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 as Sub-Inspector in the C. B. I. with effect from November 12, 1991. After due consideration of the said proposal, the Government of Orissa in the Home Department was pleased to issue a 'No Objection Certificate (for short the 'N.O.C.') on November 20, 1992, intimating the C.B.I. authorities that the State Government has no objection if opposite party No. 1 is permanently absorbed in the C.B.I. opposite party No. 1 while working as Sub-Inspector, on January 12, 1993. promoted to the rank of Inspector, C. B. I. . Thereafter another request was made by the C. B. I, authorities to the State Government to accord concurrence. On March 76, 1993, the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police, Orissa, intimated the C.B.I. authorities that sanction of permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 in C. B. I. had already been accorded by the State Government and the same had been forwarded to the C. B. I. vide letter dated November 20, 1992. On March 76, 1993, the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police, Orissa, intimated the C.B.I. authorities that sanction of permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 in C. B. I. had already been accorded by the State Government and the same had been forwarded to the C. B. I. vide letter dated November 20, 1992. Therefore, no further concurrence was necessary for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 to the rank of Inspector, C.B.I. Surprisingly once again in June 23, 1995, the C.B.I. authorities at New Delhi requested the Director-General of Police, Orissa for according approval for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 in the rank of Inspector of C.B.I.. In reply to the said request the Director-General of Police, Orissa, again issued a N.O.C. on August 5, 1995, intimating the C.B.I. authorities that they have no objection for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 in C.B.I. However, on February 24, 1998, the Administrative Officer, C.B.I. directed for repatriation of opposite party No, 1 to the State Police. The said order was challenged by opposite party No. Z before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 302 of 1998. 2. The present petitioner who were respondents 1,3,4 and 6 before the Tribunal filed a counter-affidavit admitting most of the facts. However, a stand has been taken that though the State Government has submitted the N.O.C. for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 as Sub-Inspector in C. B. I., in the meantime he was promoted as Inspector in the said organisation under deputation quota and as he had completed five years of service as Sub-Inspector, the approval accorded by the State Government on November 12, 1991, had become infructuous. A further plea has been taken that a deputationist has no vested right to be absorbed in the borrowing department and as the N.O.C. was not received in time the C. B. I. authorities rightly took a decision to repartriate opposite party No. 1 to his parent department. It is further submitted that for absorption as Inspector of C. B. I., one has to pass a Bachellor's Degree. Opposite party No. 1 did not possess the said Degree and, therefore, he cannot be promoted as the Inspector of C. B. I. 3. It is further submitted that for absorption as Inspector of C. B. I., one has to pass a Bachellor's Degree. Opposite party No. 1 did not possess the said Degree and, therefore, he cannot be promoted as the Inspector of C. B. I. 3. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by a well discussed order came to the conclusion that opposite party No. 1 has been working as Sub-Inspector of C.B.I. from October 1, 1987 and from January 13, 1993, he has been working as Inspector, C. B. I. Thus, the impugned order directing repatriation of the opposite party No. 1 to his parent department is not, justified and would cause a considerable hardship. The Tribunal further held that, in view of the fact that the C. B. I. authorities in November, 1991 had taken a decision to absorb opposite party No. 1 as the Sub-Inspector, there is no justification why the said decision should not be worked out specially in view of the fact that the State Government had already accorded N.O.C. for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 in the C. B. I. On the basis of the aforesaid finding the original application was disposed of with a direction that the C. B. I. authorities should consider the case of opposite party No. 1 for his permanent absorption in the C. B I. Department. 4. The order passed by the Tribunal referred to the preceding paragraph was not complied by the C.B.I. authorities and opposite party No. 1 preferred O. A. No, 302 of 1998. The said application was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal with a direction to the Director, C. B. I., New Delhi to consider the case of the opposite party No. 1 for his absorption in the C. B. I. The said order was challenged by the C, B. I. authorities before this Court in O. J. C. No. 16704 of 1998 which was disposed of on December 7, 1998, with a direction to the Director, C. B. I to consider the case of opposite party No. 1 for absorption in the C. B. I. as Sub-Inspector within four weeks. 5. Thereafter, the Director, C.B.I. passed an order negativing the claim of the applicant for permanent absorption in the C.B.I. on the ground that he is not a Graduate. 5. Thereafter, the Director, C.B.I. passed an order negativing the claim of the applicant for permanent absorption in the C.B.I. on the ground that he is not a Graduate. The opposite party No. 1 was once again constrained to challenge the said decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 146 of 1999. After receiving the.notice, the C. B. I. authorities appeared and filed a counter reiterating their earlier stand. It is further reiterated that the eligibility criteria as laid down in the Circular dated December 17, 1997 being the guide for the post of Inspector, C. B. I. and admittedly as opposite party No. 1 did not possess a Graduate Degree, his absorptidn in the said post is not permissible. 6. The Tribunal disposed of the original application with a finding that the decision of the Director, O. B. I. not to absorb opposite party No. 1 as the Inspector, as he is a non-Graduate, is not tenable in the eye of law and that the impugned order dated February 24, 1998 directing the repatriation of opposite party No. 1 is not sustainable and quashed the same. The Tribunal further directed the C. B. I. authorities to permanently absorb opposite party No. 1 as the Sub-Inspector of C. B. I. with eftect from November 12, 1991 with consequential benefits. The said order dated October 27, 1999 is impugned by the Union of India in this writ application. 7. By the prolonged litigation, most of the issues have been settled by virtue of different judgments passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as by this Court. The only issue on which the abrotption of opposite party No. 1 in the post of Inspector, C.B.I. has been turned down by the authorities is that he is a 'Matriculate' and not a 'Graduate'. 8. We Have heard at length the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the relevant recruitment rules. It is apparent from NOTE-2 of the Schedule appended to the Notification dated the 5th February, 1987 that, '(a) 40% of the posts of Sub-Inspectors are to be filled up by promotion failing which by deputation/transfer, and (b) 60% by deputation/transfer'. Though the educational qualification for the post of Inspector, C. B. I. is stipulated to be 'Degree of a recognised University', the said qualification is insisted upon. Though the educational qualification for the post of Inspector, C. B. I. is stipulated to be 'Degree of a recognised University', the said qualification is insisted upon. only with regard to the direct recruits and is not applicable in the case of promotees. This fact is clear from the noting made under Schedule-8 of the Recruitment Notification. 9. In course of hearing 'Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Central Government, was called upon to obtain instructions as to whether 'Graduation' is a necessary qualification for appointment/promotion to the Inspector of C. B. I. on deputation from other service. On instructions, Mr. Moharity fairly submitted that there is no mandatory provision prescribing the qualification to be 'Graduate' for promption to the post of Inspector, C. B, I. on deputation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and perusing relevant documents which were produced before us, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at its conclu-sion-and we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Mr. J. Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that in the meanwhile the opposite party No. 1 was coerced to get himself relieved and to join in the Police Department. It is admitted that opposite party No. 1 was relieved by the C.B.I. authorities. But, unfortunately he is not permitted to join at his parent department in view of the fact that the authorities have already accorded permission for his permanent absorption in the C.B.I. In view of the changed circumstance, we direct that opposite party No. 1 should be immediately permitted to join in the C. B. I. In the post held by him before1 the im'pugned order was passed. Not possessing the qualification of 'Graduation' shall not stand as bar in his way to be absorbed in the promoted post of Inspector. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application is dismissed. But without cost. Pradipta Ray, J. 9. I agree. 10. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed