Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has challenged orders and decisions contained in Annexures 3, 4 and 5 which have the effect of terminating petitioners deputation from service under the Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad to one under the Treasury Officer, Gaya under the control of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar. It is not in dispute that a deputationist has very limited rights based upon policy decisions and rules of absorption if they have statutory force. 3. In this case on behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Awadhesh Sharma vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2003(2) PLJR 393 to submit that in similar circumstances repatriation of employees of different corporations from State service back to the corporation was interfered with. A perusal of the said judgment discloses that the repatriation was in respect of such corporations which had become defunct and the effect of repatriation was bound to be the termination of the services of the concerned employees. Hence, this Court treated such repatriation to be unusual and on different footing. In the case of the petitioner the request of the parent corporation contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit dated 10.9.2001 is within four years of petitioners deputation to the Government service and it shows that the corporation is more than willing to have the service of the petitioner back because it is facing shortage of Accounts Clerk. Hence, the judgment in the case of Awadhesh Sharma is of no help to the petitioner. 4. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was also placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad vs. MD, UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. reported in (1999)8 SCC 381 to submit that whenever there is prejudice to the deputed employee on account of delay in repatriation and where there are rules framed for absorption in pursuance of the borrowing departments policy then absorption cannot be denied without justifiable reasons. There is no dispute with the proposition laid in the said judgment. But the facts of this case are different. There are no clear policy decisions for absorption except a vague communication in Annexure-2 that in future it may be considered if the conduct is good. There is no dispute with the proposition laid in the said judgment. But the facts of this case are different. There are no clear policy decisions for absorption except a vague communication in Annexure-2 that in future it may be considered if the conduct is good. There is no time limit of five years for losing lien in the parent organisation and petitioners service was recalled by the parent department within four years as appears from Annexure C. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that petitioner has no special rights as a deputationist to insist upon continuing in the service of the State of Bihar. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.