JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The appellant was an employee of the Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. He went to work as Estate Officer in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board on deputation. There were certain other retired employees re-employed in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. There were also some deputations. The Power Engineer Service Association, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, filed a writ petition, WP (S) No. 3746 of 2001 complaining that the employment opportunities of officers of the Board are affected by re-employment of retired Board employee and by taking officers on deputation and hence, a direction should be issued to the State Electricity Board not to employ retired personnel and not to take engineers from other organizations on deputation and for other incidental reliefs. In the writ petition, one officer on deputation was impleaded as respondent No. 4. The learned Single Judge on hearing the writ petition and on scrutiny of the file produced before him by the Board, came to the conclusion that the re-employment of retired personnel of the Board was not justified and that the Board was bound to consider first the claim of the officers presently working in the Board for promotion to the available posts. The Court also quashed the employment on deputation of respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. Thus, the writ petition was allowed. 2. The State Electricity Board filed a petition for review, Civil Review No. 28 of 2002. The learned Single Judge called for the file and found, also based on the allegations in the affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioner Association, that there were serious irregularities in the appointment of the appellant herein, who was not a party to the writ petition or to the review petition and it is to be held that the Board had violated the direction of this Court in extending the deputation of the appellant herein with effect from 1.7.2002. The Review Petition was dismissed finding that there was no error calling for correction. But notice was issued to the officers of the Board to show cause why action should not be taken against them for trying to circumvent the directions of the Court in the writ petition. The Court also directed that all officers who have been re-appointed/ engaged in any capacity or against any non-cadre post, will not discharge their duties as such until further orders. 3. The Court also directed that all officers who have been re-appointed/ engaged in any capacity or against any non-cadre post, will not discharge their duties as such until further orders. 3. The appellant filed the present appeal with a petition for Leave to Appeal submitting that he is prejudiced by the order on the Review Petition and the observations made therein and that the learned Single Judge was not justified in making those observations when he was not a party either to the writ petition or to the review petition. He also contended that he was on deputation from the Mineral Area Development Authority, to an ex-cadre post and such deputation to an ex-cadre post was not covered or intended to be covered, by the judgment rendered in the writ petition. This Court admitted the appeal and issued an order directing maintenance of the status quo as regards the appellant. The appellant had come to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board on deputation on 1.7.2001 for a term of one year. On the expiry of that term, the deputation had been extended by another year on 1.7,2002 till 1.7.2003. While the appeal was pending, that period of deputation also expired on 1.7.2003. On that day, the State Electricity Board, even without seeking permission of the Court which had directed maintenance of the status quo, extended the deputation of the appellant for a further period until orders are passed by the High Curt in this appeal. 4. Though the appeal was originally directed to be posted along with LPA Nos. 587 of 2002 and 561 of 2002, which challenged the original decision of the learned Single Judge, it was subsequently felt that it was necessary to hear this appeal independent to those appeals in the circumstances obtaining and the appeal was separated. Thereafter the appeal was heard separately and in detail. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not a party to the writ petition and was not a party to the review petition. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in making observations about the deputation of the appellant, that too, without giving an opportunity to the appellant to put forward his case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not a party to the writ petition and was not a party to the review petition. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in making observations about the deputation of the appellant, that too, without giving an opportunity to the appellant to put forward his case. He further contended that the writ petitioner was the Power Engineer Services Association, an Association of Engineers and what they were agitating was the claim of engineers for promotion to the posts said to be filled up by the Electricity Board by deputation or re-employment of retired engineers of the Board. The appellant was not an engineer. He was a Law graduate and was on deputation in a non-engineering post. That post was an ex- cadre post and the judgment in the writ petition dealt with only a cadre post and the claim of the Association made to those posts in the writ petition. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the observations made by the learned Single Judge about the appellant herein especially in the order of review was liable to be set aside. 6. Counsel for the writ petitioner, the respondent, submitted that the original judgment did cover the cases of all deputationists and consequently the appellant cannot contend that he was not within the purview of the direction issued in the judgment. It was further contended that it was on scrutiny of the files that the learned Single Judge found serious irregularities in the matter of deputation of the appellant and that was the reason why observations regarding the deputation of the appellant were made in the order on the review petition. Counsel submitted that deputation of the appellant was totally unjustified and it was also irregular and improper and hence no interference was called for with the judgment under appeal, including the order on the review. 7. We had directed counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to produce the relevant file before us so as to enable us to scrutinize the same Pursuant to our order, learned counsel for the Board made the file available to us for our scrutiny. 7. We had directed counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to produce the relevant file before us so as to enable us to scrutinize the same Pursuant to our order, learned counsel for the Board made the file available to us for our scrutiny. He has submitted that the appellant was holding an ex-cadre post and the deputation was to that post and the decision of the learned Single Judge, at the instance of the respondent Association did not really cover cases of deputation like that of the appellant. 8. Of course, the argument that the appellant should have been given an opportunity of being heard before the observations in the review petition were made by the learned Single Judge is attractive, but at the same time, a scrutiny of the file shows the manner in which the appellant was taken on deputation in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and it was extended even ignoring the serious objections raised. It is also seen that the formalities for bringing an officer on proper deputation were not complied with. The appellant was allowed to join his post in the Electricity Board even before the service details of the appellant were received from the Mineral Area Development Authority. It was the minimum requirement. It may be noted that those details had been called for. It is surprising that even without waiting for the details being furnished, the appellant was allowed to join on deputation. Similarly, after expiry of the first year, serious objections were raised by a representative of the people about the non-suitability of the appellant to continue in the post. There was no proper consideration of those objections and even at that stage, no attempt was made to verify the service records of the appellant in the Mining Area Development Authority. We think that in the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in making those remarks in the order on review concerning the manner in which the appellant had been brought in. The plea based on natural justice, if accepted, would only enable the appellant to put forward his case on merits. By permitting him to appeal against the judgment and by hearing him in detail an opportunity of hearing has now been made available to the appellant. The plea based on natural justice, if accepted, would only enable the appellant to put forward his case on merits. By permitting him to appeal against the judgment and by hearing him in detail an opportunity of hearing has now been made available to the appellant. On hearing the appellant thus in detail and on going through the relevant file of the Board, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where we should refuse to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in the petition for review. Since this is a case where the appellant was not heard before the observations were made and he was entitled to an opportunity of being heard, we have heard him and we have not considered the question whether the appeal is maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against an order refusing to review a judgment. We have proceeded on the basis that the appeal is maintainable. 9. Since we are fully satisfied that the deputation of the appellant to the Board was highly irregular, nay illegal, we are satisfied that no interference is called for. The extension of deputation of the appellant even without reference to the Court while the appeal was pending is also one with the act of allowing him to join on deputation even without verifying his service records in Mineral Area Development Authority. That also demonstrates the attitude adopted by the Electricity Board in the matter concerning employment of the appellant. R.K. Merathia, J. 10. I agree.