Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 14 March, 2002 on C.W.J.C. No. 1021 of 2002: Ajay Kumar Prasad V/s. State of Bihar & ors. 2. Notwithstanding the previous litigations referred to in the order which has been challenged the issues apparently do not rest. On the present matter the issues have been made by the petitioner on deputation and his repatriation to his parent department. The petitioner-appellant resists the action to end his deputation. The petitioner is an Electrical Executive Engineer with the Bihar State Electricity Board. He saw a deputation to the Building Construction and Housing Department, Govt, of Bihar. The return of the petitioner to his parent department is opposed. 3. On the submissions made and as noted in the impugned order on the writ petition three aspects arise(a) any deputation of the petitioner, even if it was permitted to keep its term, would come to a close on 5 May, 2002, that is to say, in another 25 days as from today, (b) the petitioner made an issue of the fact that his repatriation did not see an order of the Chief Minister and (c) this aspect follows from the first two on the insistence of the petitioner to continue on deputation in the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar. (a) In so far as the aspect of the petitioner being permitted to keep the tenure of a deputation, it is a settled law that deputation is not a vested right in the present circumstances of the petitioner. It is subject to re-call by the authority and further for reconsideration either by the department which has lent the petitioners services or the department which desires repatriation. (b) it was on the petitioners insistence, the impugned order records, that the orginal record was sought. The original record, in effect, shows that the Chief Minister had endorsed the appointment of a person on the post hitherto occupied by the petitioner. On this, the contention is that there is no order of the Chief Minister repatriating the petitioner to the parent department. It is the petitioner who sought the record and the Court ordered it so. Impliedly or otherwise, if the petitioners post has been taken by another incumbent it follows that the petitioner must see repatriation to his parent department. On this, the contention is that there is no order of the Chief Minister repatriating the petitioner to the parent department. It is the petitioner who sought the record and the Court ordered it so. Impliedly or otherwise, if the petitioners post has been taken by another incumbent it follows that the petitioner must see repatriation to his parent department. (c) The third aspect that the petitioner continues on deputation in the Building Construction Department is a matter rather amusing as to why a public servant would insist that he be retained in a particular department, in the present case the Building Construction Department. This question is best left unanswered. 4. There is no merit in this appeal. 5. Dismissed.