Judgment 1. The appellant-Shri Rohit Singh, who had been impleaded as Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, has preferred this appeal against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, restraining the Jaipur Development Authority (shortly referred to as J.D.A.) from calling people on deputation and absorbing them on permanent basis. While recording this order, liberty, however, has been left to the JDA to undertake such exercise with prior permission of the Court. The appellant here-in, is aggrieved with the order only to the extent, wherein a direction has been issued therein as follows:- "The persons already on deputation should not be given any further extension after expiry of the period". 2. The appellant is aggrieved specifically with this part of the order only, as it has been stated that although the order in so far as other parties are concerned may be interim in nature, the appellant is gravely affected as he is on deputation with the JDA and has already lost his lien and job in the Rajasthan Hosing Board, which was his parent department. 3. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that there is a specific rule under 12(ga) in the Jaipur Development Authority Rules, which states that a person called on deputation may be absorbed permanently in the JDA The appellant relying on this rule did not choose to return to his parent department, as he was interested to continue in the JDA but inspite of this rule, if the period of his deputation, which is due to expire on 31.05.2006, is not extended, he will suffer serious consequences, as he has already lost his job in the Rajasthan Housing Board and is on deputation in JDA which is due to be extended, in view of the aforesaid rule. But the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has put a restraint on such deputation, which is contrary to the Rule. 4. But the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has put a restraint on such deputation, which is contrary to the Rule. 4. We do not wish to express our view, in so far as the interpretation and application of this rule is concerned, as the matter is still sub-judice before the learned Single Judge, but considering the fact that the appellant had been called on deputation and was permitted to continue in the Job in JDA and has already been checked out from his parent Department, we observe that it would be appropriate to permit at least the appellant herein-Rohit Singh to seek an extension of his deputation, if the JDA so permits, by filing a fresh application before the learned Single Judge and inviting the attention of the Court to the Rule and the circumstances justifying such extension. We are confident that the learned Single Judge, considering the hardship and impact on the fate of the appellant in the light of the relevant rule, will consider the appellants plight and pass a suitable order. 5. The appellant is at liberty to file an application in this regard before the learned Single Judge within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and till an order on his application is passed, status-quo in regard to his continuance on deputation in the JDA will operate in his favour. 6. The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.