Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 31.07.2002, contained in Memorandum No. N.R.O. Diary No. 1126, Annexure P-8, by which respondent No. 1 has declined to forward his application for being considered for appointment by way of deputation on the post of Senior Private Secretary (Group-B Gazetted), with respondent No. 3, i.e. the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent No. 1 to forward his application to respondent No. 3 for consideration of his claim for appointment on the aforesaid post. 2. Written statement has been filed. Replication has also been filed by the petitioner. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. 4. Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had made an application through proper channel on the basis of circular, which had been issued by respondent No. 3 on 23.03.2001. The petitioner was fully eligible to apply for the aforesaid post. Respondent No. 3 had issued another circular on 10.04.2001 inviting applications for the same post. Therefore, the petitioner submitted his application on 28.05.2001 through proper channel. This application was withheld by respondent No. 1. However, respondent No. 3 issued another circular on 20.02.2002 for recruitment on the post of Senior Private Secretary/Private Secretary on the existing as well as anticipated vacancies. The petitioner again applied through proper channel for the post of Senior Private Secretary, Respondent No. 1 again declined to forward the application of the petitioner. The petitioner had, however, sent an advance copy to respondent No. 3 on 25.06.2002. On the basis of advance copy, respondent No. 3 invited the petitioner for provisional interview on 06.08.2002 subject to the condition that his application is received through proper channel before 06.08.2002. On 04.07.2002, the petitioner requested respondent No. l to forward his application through proper channel so that the petitioner could be interviewed on 06.08.2002. The application of the petitioner was recommended by his immediate boss, i.e. the Deputy Director General, Bureau of Indian Standards, Northern Regional Office, Respondent No. 2. with the following observations:- "We may allow the employee to avail this chance, so that he may enrich his vision by working in another organisation. It is not likely to impair the working at NRO, We may, therefore, consider employees request favourably. with the following observations:- "We may allow the employee to avail this chance, so that he may enrich his vision by working in another organisation. It is not likely to impair the working at NRO, We may, therefore, consider employees request favourably. Sd/- 2002-07-95 (Dy. Director General)" 5. Inspite of the aforesaid recommendation on 05.07.2002, respondent No. 1 has again declined to accept the request of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition on 14.08.2002. 6. Notice of motion was issued on 16.08.2002. By order dated 19.08.2002, the petitioner was permitted to provisionally appear for interview before respondent No. 3 subject to the final order, which may be passed in this writ petition. We are further informed by Mr. Hooda, learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner had actually been interviewed on the basis of the aforesaid order, but his result has not been declared. Mr. Hooda has further argued that the decision of the respondents contained in Annexure P-8, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the petitioner deserves to be given chance for improving his prospects. He has been working in the same department since 1985. Earlier also, he had not been given promotion which was due to him. The same was released, only after the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court. Mr. Hooda has further submitted that the Central Government has framed a policy giving guidelines for interpreting the term "Public Interest" with regard to the persons being sent on deputation. This policy is contained in booklet known as "Swamys Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration for Central Government Officers (S-2) 1994), Chapter-43". The relevant part of the aforesaid policy is as under:- "2. Guidelines for interpretating the term "public Interest":- 1. The general principles to be observed in dealing with application of Government servants applying for posts and appointments elsewhere provide that except where public interest otherwise demands, the administrative authorities should ordinarily forward applications which are submitted either in response to advertisements issued by the Union Public Service Commission or applications which are submitted by temporary Government servants for permanent posts in response to requests officially received from other Departments. The principles also provide that in deciding whether to forward an application or to withhold it on grounds of public interest, the competent Authority has to balance the interest of the State against the necessity of avoiding hardship to the individual. No distinction is made between the technical and scientific personnel on the one hand and the other categories of Government servants on the other. 2. The head of Departments should interpret the term "Public Interest" strictly and subject to that consideration, the forwarding of applications should be the rule rather than an exception. Ordinarily, every employee (whether scientific or technical or non-scientific and non-technical personnel) should be permitted to apply for an outside post even though he may be holding a permanent post but this should not be done more than four times in a year. In cases where Government servants, apply for posts in response to UPSC advertisements, it shall not be counted against the four time in a year restriction. In case the employing department or Institution is entirely temporary whereas in the case of Atomic Energy Commission, the Department or Institution employs a large number of scientific personnel in a temporary capacity, the restrict should be made applicable to the holders of the temporary posts also". 7. On the basis of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would not be in public interest to deny the permission to the petitioner. According to para 2 of the policy, the forwarding of the applications should be the rule rather than an exception. Learned counsel further submitted that in the face of the recommendation having been made by his immediate controlling authority, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for being sent on deputation with respondent No. 3. 8. On the other hand. Mr. Guglani, leaned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that there is shortage of staff in the organisation of respondent No. 1. Therefore, the services of the petitioner could not be spared. He relied on an order issued by respondent No. 1 on 15.05.2002. We have considered the submissions made, by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The petitioner is seeking appointment with respondent No. 3 by way of deputation. It is settled proposition of law that no public servant can claim to have a vested right to be sent on deputation to a foreign employer. We have considered the submissions made, by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The petitioner is seeking appointment with respondent No. 3 by way of deputation. It is settled proposition of law that no public servant can claim to have a vested right to be sent on deputation to a foreign employer. Whether or not to send an employee on deputation, is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the controlling authority depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Legal position is rather contrary to what is convassed by Mr. Hooda. No public servant can be sent to deputation without his consent. Once a public servant is appointed on a particular cadre, he is entitled to continue in the same unless the same is changed with his consent. The only exception can be if it is provided in the rules that his cadre can be changed in exigencies of service by the employer. Generally speakirg, the employee is entitled to continue in the service in which he was recruited. In the present case, the respondents have given a justification for not forwarding the application of the petitioner for being appointed on deputation with respondent No. 3. In the order Annexure P-8, it is categorically mentioned that there is a shortage of staff in the organisation of respondent No. 1. Reference has also been made to a decision taken by respondent No. 1 on 15.5.2002, which clearly states that BIS should not depute any office to other organisations till shortage scenario exists. That being the situation, we are unable to hold that the respondents have acted arbitrarily or on extraneous consideration. In absence of any of these factors, the decision of the respondents cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the above we find no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.