JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.: The petitioner was working as Senior assistant on the establishment of Himachal Pradesh University since 1986. Application were invited by the respondent No.1 (Indira Gandhi National Open University) for appointment as Senior Assistant on its establishment at its Regional Center at Shimla on deputation basis. The petitioner also applied for the same. On 26.3.1990 vide annexure P 1, the petitioner was offered the post of Senior Assistant on deputation basis for a period of one year in the first instance. The offer was accepted by the petitioner and he joined the respondent No.1 University on 14.6.1990. He was, therefore, taken on the strength of respondent No.1 University for a period of one year with effect from the said date, that is, 14.6.1990 vide office order dated 5/10.7.1990 (Annexure P 2). The initial period of deputation of one year came to be extended from time to vide office orders Annexure P 3 to P 6. The last extension vide Annexure vide Annexure P 6 was up to 13.6.1995. 2. The petitioner on 12.5.1994 vide Annexure P 7 exercised his option for being absorbed as Senior Assistant on the establishment of respondent No.1 University in the following terms; "As I am willing to serve the Indira Gandhi National Open University, I hereby exercise by option for being absorbed in the Indira Gandhi National Open University subject to the condition that I may be given the service benefits as well as seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants from the date of my joining this University, that is w.e.f. 14.6.1990. I am holding the post of Senior Assistant in my parent department H.P. University from June, 1986. Prior to that I have worked as Sr. Assistant (Accounts)/Accountant in the H.P. University from October 1978 to June, 1986." 3. The request for absorption made by the petitioner was accepted by the respondent No.1 University and he came to be absorbed as Senior Assistant with effect from 16.5.1995 vide office order dated 18.5.1995 (Annexure P 8). Such order reads:- Based on his consent vide letter dt.12th January, 1994 and with the concurrence of Himachal Pradesh University. Establishment Branch vide letter No. 8-158/76-HPU (Estt.) 4513 dated 8th May, 1995, the undersigned is pleased to absorb Sh. Chuni Lal Sharma as Senior Assistant in the Indira Gandhi National Open University in the Scale of pay of Rs. Such order reads:- Based on his consent vide letter dt.12th January, 1994 and with the concurrence of Himachal Pradesh University. Establishment Branch vide letter No. 8-158/76-HPU (Estt.) 4513 dated 8th May, 1995, the undersigned is pleased to absorb Sh. Chuni Lal Sharma as Senior Assistant in the Indira Gandhi National Open University in the Scale of pay of Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 with effect from 16th May, 1995 forenoon. His pay will be fixed under the provisions of Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance O.M No. F(II)-E-III-(B)/69 dated 20.01.70 as amended from time to time. The orders of interse- Seniority in the Senior Assistant grade shall be fixed separately." 4. Since the question of seniority of the petitioner was not decided/determined by respondent No.1 University, the petitioner on 28.11.1995 made a representation for, deciding the question on his seniority and to assign him the seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants with effect from 14.6.1990, the date on which he had joined the respondent No.1 University as Senior Assistant on deputation basis. Such representation was followed by another representation dated 31.1.1996. 5. Respondent No.1 University on consideration of the matter decided that Seniority of the petitioner would be reckoned from the date of his permanent absorption, that is, 16.5.1995 in accordance with the rules of the respondent No.1 University. The petitioner was informed of the decision through Regional Director. Shimla, vide Annexure P-10. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the decision conveyed to him vide Annexure P 10 assigning him the Seniority with effect from 16.5.1995, the date of his absorption, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 University on 1.3.1996 vide Annexure P 12. Respondent No. 2 while forwarding the representation of the petitioner on 4.3.1996 to the respondent No.1 vide Annexure P11 recommended the case of the petitioner for fixation of his Seniority with effect from 14.6.1990 in the following terms:- You are requested to consider his case sympathetically and seniority be fixed from the date of his deputation i.e. 14.6.1990 as he was holding the position as Sr. Asstt. in his parent department prior to coming on deputation." 7. The above representation dated 1.3.1996 (Annexure P 12) was followed another representation dated 17.4.1996. Asstt. in his parent department prior to coming on deputation." 7. The above representation dated 1.3.1996 (Annexure P 12) was followed another representation dated 17.4.1996. The representation so made were rejected by respondent No.1 University and the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 11/14.5.1996 (Annexure P 15) as under- “This has a reference to the representation dated 17.4.1996 from Shri Chuni Lal Sharma, Sr. Asstt on the subject cited above. In this connection, it is stated that the seniority of Shri Chunni Lal Sharma, Sr. Asstt. has been fixed accordance with the R&P Rules, 1991 for Group B’ C’ & D’, employees, without prejudice to the rights of the existing employees. As a already intimated in our letter 1-1(58)NA/ESTT/749 dated 26.2.1996, he shall reckon seniority from the date of his absorption in the University and not from the date of joining on deputation. The official may be informed accordingly." 8. The petitioner continued pursuing the matter with the competent Authority even thereafter However, the respondent No.1 University sticked to its earlier stand and assigned the seniority to the petitioner only with effect from 16.5.1995, the date of his absorption in the respondent No.1 University. A seniority list of Senior Assistants as on 31.7.1997 was circulated by the respondents No.1 for the first time on 19.9.1997 (Annexure P 22). In such seniority list the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 37 below respondents No.3 to 38 who were juniors to the petitioner as Senior Assistants having been appointed/promoted as Senior Assistants/during the period 21.1.1993 to 31.1.1995, though the petitioner was working as Senior Assistants on the establishment of respondent No.1 Since 14.6.1990. Hence the present writ petition for directing the respondent No.1 University to assign the seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Assistants with effect from 14.6.1990 and to place him senior to respondents No. 3 to 38 with all consequential benefits including holding of review Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Officer with effect from the date arrears of pay and other emoluments becoming due and payable on account of such promotion. 9. No appearance was put in on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 38 in spite of service. They were thus proceeded against ex-parte. 10. 9. No appearance was put in on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 38 in spite of service. They were thus proceeded against ex-parte. 10. Respondents No. 1 & 2 in their reply affidavit have reiterated their stand that the seniority of the petitioner was rightly fixed with effect from 16.5.1995, the date of his permanent absorption in accordance with the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules applicable to the employees of the respondent No.1 University, It was pleaded that the petitioner till he was permanently absorbed continued to be on deputation and as such he was not an employee of the respondent No.1 University. The petitioner became and employee of the respondent No.1 University only with effect from the date of his permanent absorption. 11. The sole question, thus, arising for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority with effect 14.6.1990 (the date he joined the service under respondent No.1 University on deputation) or with effect from 14.6.1995 (the date on which he was permanently absorbed in the service of respondent No.1 University)? 12. Dealing with the meaning of "Deputation", the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umapati Choudhary V. State of Bihar and another, [(1999) 4 SCC 659] had held:- "Deputation can be aptly described as 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 (commonly 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." 13. In the present case, admittedly, all the three conditions were fulfilled. The H.P University, that is, the present department or the lending authority, the respondent No.1 University, that is, the borrowing authority and the petitioner (the deputation) had ail given their consent for the deputation of the petitioner and for his permanent absorption on the establishment of the borrowing authority. 14. The H.P University, that is, the present department or the lending authority, the respondent No.1 University, that is, the borrowing authority and the petitioner (the deputation) had ail given their consent for the deputation of the petitioner and for his permanent absorption on the establishment of the borrowing authority. 14. In S.K Mathur and ethers V. Union of India and others [(1998)4 SCC 134 ], the Bank Note Press, Dewas (for short, the press), which is a departmental undertaking of the Government of India and is engaged in the sovereign function of printing bank notes, was establishment in the year 1972. Since at the time of its establishments, the press net did net have its own cadres of various pests nor were any Recruitment Rules made for those posts, on its request the Government of India created and sanctioned 20 posts in the grade of Inspector (control). As it was felt that it would not be safe or possible to entrust the responsibilities of processing and final supply of bank notes to the Reserve Bank of India, to raw hands, namely, the new recruits, the press, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, decided to fill up 50% of the posts from qualified and trained persons working in sister organizations and remaining 50% by direct recruitment. Consequently, the press issued a requisition on 1.6.1972 to the sister organizations, including the India Security Press, Nasik Road, for sponsoting the names of the candidates willing to take up appointment as Inspector (Control) for which the eligibility criteria was five years experience as Assistant Inspector (Control) at the India Security Press on various dated during the period 9.2.1961 to 7.1.1966 applied for appointment as Inspectors (control) in the Press. They were appointed on these posts on deputation en different dated, between 9.2.1973 and 10.1.1974. In the meantime, they were promoted though notionally, on the posts of Inspectors (controls) in their parent department during the period 1974-75 and were also confirmed on these posts. On 20.11.1974, the Press promulgated and notified the Bank Note press (Class III Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1974. These rules were amended on 1.12.1975 to include transfer on deputation as one of the modes of recruitment. In 1976, Six permanent posts of Inspector (control) were sanctioned by the Government of India w.e.f. 22.1.1976. 15. On 20.11.1974, the Press promulgated and notified the Bank Note press (Class III Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1974. These rules were amended on 1.12.1975 to include transfer on deputation as one of the modes of recruitment. In 1976, Six permanent posts of Inspector (control) were sanctioned by the Government of India w.e.f. 22.1.1976. 15. Since, on the date on which the posts of Inspector (control) were proposed to be filed up on permanent basis, no eligible officer in the feeder line of promotion was available and the direct recruits being on probation, were also ineligible, the appellants, who were holding the posts Inspector (Control) on deputation and had already held these posts in their parent department on permanent basis, were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee convened on 14.2.1976 and recommended that the appellants may be permanently absorbed on the posts of Inspector (Control) in the Press with effect from 22.1.1976, the date on which the permanent posts of Inspector (Control) were created. Consequently, order dated 22.3.1976, the appellants were appointed as Inspector (Control) in substantive capacity with effect from 22.1.1976 and their liens held in the India Security Press were terminated. 16. Respondents No. 3 to 9 before the Honble Supreme Court, who were direct recruits and were initially appointed as Apprentice Assistant Inspectors (controls) between October 1973 and January 1975, were appointed as Inspectors (Controls) firstly on probation during the period 5.4.1975 to 20.1.1996 and then in substantive capacity during August/September, 1977. 17. Having regards to the above facts, when the seniority list of Inspectors (Controls) was issued by the Press on 18.9.1979, the appellants were shown as seniors to the direct recruits, namely, the respondents No3 to 9. 18. Respondents No. 3 to 9 feeling aggrieved by the absorption of the appellants on permanent basis as Inspectors (Controls) as also be being treated as juniors to the appellants, approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1980 by way of a writ petition claming that the recruitment rules, 1974 be declared unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 the Constitution of India the seniority list published on 18.9.1979 be quashed and they be treated as seniors to the appellants. Such writ petition was later on transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. Such writ petition was later on transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. The Tribunal on 26.4.1990 allowed the petition of the respondents No.3 to 9 and held that the appellants could not be treated as senior to respondents No3 to 9 and that the services rendered by the appellant prior to 1.12.1975 could not be reckoned for the purposes of determining their seniority as their appointment on deputation on the posts of Inspector (Control) was not in accordance with the rules as they existed prior to 1.12.175 when there was no provision for appointment being made on these posts by deputation. The tribunal was of the view that provision for appointment on deputation on the posts of Inspector (control) was made for the first time by amendment made in the Rules on 1.12.1975 and as the appellants were absorbed in substantive capacity on those posts with effect from 22.1.1976, they could reckon their seniority only with effect from that date while the respondents No.3 to 9 who were also appointed as Inspector (Control) would be entitled to reckon their seniority from the date (s) of continuous officiation on that post irrespective of the fact that they had completed their probation subsequent to the substantive absorption of the appellants. The Tribunal was farther of the view that since, deputation was not one of the modes of recruitment for appointment on the posts of Inspector (Control), the deputations, namely, the appellants would not be entitled to carry the benefit of their past service, including the service rendered by them in their parent department, namely The India Security Press to the department in which they were ultimately absorbed list published on 18.9.1979 was quashed by the Tribunal and it was directed that a review Departmental Committee be convened to consider the cases of Promotion from the posts of Inspector (Control) with reference to the respective position of the candidates in the revised seniority list. 19. On the matter carried in the appeal by the appellants, the Honble Supreme Court set aside the order dated 26.4.1990 of the Tribunal and held that the appellants were rightly treated as seniors to respondents No.3 to 9. 19. On the matter carried in the appeal by the appellants, the Honble Supreme Court set aside the order dated 26.4.1990 of the Tribunal and held that the appellants were rightly treated as seniors to respondents No.3 to 9. It was observed that where recruitment is made from two different sources and an integrated seniority list is prepared of the persons so recruited, the benefits of service already rendered on similar posts in a similar organisation under the same employer will have to he given to the person appointed on the new post. 20. Sub Inspector Rooplal & anr. V. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi & ors. ((2000) 1 SCC 644), the appellants therein were Sub Inspectors of Border Security Force (BSF), They were initially taken on deputation in the Delhi Police as Sub Inspector (Executive) and were later on absorbed in the same capacity. While fixing their seniority in Delhi police, service rendered by them as Sub Inspectors in B.S.F. was not taken into consideration on the ground that pay scale of Sub Inspector in B.S.F was not equivalent to pay scale in Delhi Police. Besides, reliance was placed by the respondents on Government of India O.M. dated 29.5.1986. Clause (iv) of the said O.M. Read as under:- “In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provided transfer on deputation/transfer), his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has already been holding (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department. Such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority from the date he has been holding the post on deputation, or the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is later." 21. The Honble Supreme Court held that there was no reason why the appellants on being absorbed in equivalent cadre in transferred post should not be permitted to count their service in the parent department. The Honble Supreme Court held that there was no reason why the appellants on being absorbed in equivalent cadre in transferred post should not be permitted to count their service in the parent department. The Honble Supreme Court reiterated its decision in K. Madhavan and another v. Union of India and others ((1987) 4 SCC 566), R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon {(1982) 1 SCC 379 } and in Wing Commander J. Kumar v. Union of India {(1982) 2 SCC 116 }. 22. Nothing to the contrary could be shown by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 23. Following the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above referred to cases, the assignment of seniority to the petitioner from 16.5.1995, the date of his permanent absorption in the-cadre of Senior Assistant by respondent No.1 University by completely ignoring his post services rendered by the petitioner as Senior Assistant in his parent department or under respondent No.1 University on deputation cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 24. As a result, the present petition is allowed, the seniority list published on 19.9.1997 (Annexure P- 22) is quashed and set aside and respondent No.1 is directed to assign proper seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Assistant from 14.6.1990, the date of joining of service by petitioner as Senior Assistant on, deputation under it, as prayed for by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is further directed to hold and convene a review Departmental promotion Committee for considering the case of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Section Officer with effect from the date any official junior to the petitioner was so promoted and in the event of such promotion of the petitioner, to pay him the entire arrears becoming due and payable on account of such promotion. The entire process of reassigning the seniority to the petitioner, holding/convening of the review Departmental promotion Committee and payment of arrears, if any, shall be completed within three months from today. Parties to bear their own costs.