Judgment 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. On 10.05.2006 and 17.05.2006 also there was non-appearance and it was observed that in case of non-appearance on the next date appropriate order may be passed. 2. The case has a somewhat chequered history and in fairness to the parties we may recount certain facts without going into merit of the case. 3. The writ petition has been filed for quashing an order by which while extending the ad hoc appointment of officers of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) for another six months, ad hoc promotion/appointment of the petitioner to the RHJS was cancelled in continuation of the order dated 30.12.1996. The petitioner has also sought a direction that he may be deemed to be notionally/proforma promoted on the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the RHJS on officiating basis from 09.02.1995 when his next junior was given promotion with all consequential benefits, and for issuing posting order. 4. The case was heard on 012.2005 and adjourned to 012.2005 to enable the Counsel to take instructions from the petitioner. As noted in order dated 012.2005 the Court found that the petitioner had remained on deputation for over 14 years. Notices had been issued to him to return to the parent service i.e., the Rajasthan Judicial Service or to show cause as to why his lien in the parent service should not be terminated. The petitioner claimed to have filed representation and on that ground refused to repatriate. The Court observed that the claim projected in the representation may be considered on administrative side but on that ground the petitioner cannot remain on deputation for as long as 14 years in violation of the rules. Shri R.S. Rathore who was then representing the petitioner stated that he had not been able to contact the client. The case was postponed to first week of January, 2006. After two adjournments the case was taken up on 31.01.2006. A different Counsel appeared on that date. Shri R.S. Rathore who was then representing the petitioner stated that he had not been able to contact the client. The case was postponed to first week of January, 2006. After two adjournments the case was taken up on 31.01.2006. A different Counsel appeared on that date. In the order passed on that date the Court observed that from the letters of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Department of Legal Affairs, dated 10.06.1996, 29.07.2002 and 30.04.2003 it appeared that petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Government Advocate in the Department of Legal Affairs of the Law Ministry on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission and working as such with effect from 110.1991. The Court in the circumstances observed that it was not understandable as to how being a regular employee of the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs having secured appointment in 1991 on the recommendation of the UPSC apparently pursuant to advertisement and on the basis of selection the petitioner could seek the reliefs for his deemed promotion on the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the RHJS and posting as such. The Court also observed that if the petitioner had joined the Ministry/Department initially on deputation basis, and continued to hold the post on deputation and lien in the parent service i.e., the Rajasthan Judicial Service, in the ordinary course he should have taken permission from the High Court before applying for appointment for the post of Assistant Government Advocate through UPSC. The Court noted that it was not clear whether any permission was taken from the High Court or not. The Court expressed surprise as to how while holding a post under the Government of India on regular basis on the strength of substantive appointment through the UPSC, the petitioner could get promotion to the RHJS in the meantime. The Court observed that the facts aforesaid prima facie impinge on the conduct of the petitioner and if he is not able to give satisfactory explanation, he may make himself liable to suitable action. The Court adjourned the hearing to 02.02.2006 making it clear that if the petitioner fails to respond, adverse inference may be drawn and Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders in the matter. 5. The Court adjourned the hearing to 02.02.2006 making it clear that if the petitioner fails to respond, adverse inference may be drawn and Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders in the matter. 5. On 02.02.2006 when the case was taken up a different Counsel appeared only to state that unless contents of the letters dated 11.06.1996, 29.07.2002 and 30.04.2003, referred to above, are made known the petitioner cannot file his response. We directed copy of the order dated 31.01.2006 (Supra), which contained excerpts of the aforesaid three letters to be supplied to the petitioner and the case was adjourned to 06.02.2006. On 06.02.2006 again, a different Counsel appeared for the petitioner who stated that the petitioner had moved the Supreme Court for transfer of the case from the Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice to a Bench headed by next senior Judge of the High Court or to the Delhi Court. The case was adjourned to 06.03.2006. 6. When the case was taken up on 08.05.2006 none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The case was adjourned to 10.05.2006 with a direction to the Registry to find out the status of the transfer application in the Supreme Court. On 10.05.2006 the Registry reported that Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 154/2006 was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.03.2006. None was present on behalf of the petitioner. The case was adjourned to 15.05.2006 and it was observed that in case of non appearance appropriate order may be passed. On 17.05.2006, when the case was taken up, again there was non appearance but as an indulgence it was adjourned to 19.05.2006 i.e., today with similar observation that in case of non appearance appropriate order may be passed. 7. We have narrated the events only to highlight the conduct of the petitioner. If the petitioner thought that he has a valid claim he should have pressed the claim and obtained orders on merit. The hide and seek conduct of the kind mentioned above cannot be approved. The petitioner has been a member of the Judicial Service and, to say the least, he should have shown some courtesy to the High Court. 8. Having thus expressed our anguish we have no option but to dismiss the writ petition for non prosecution. We order accordingly.