Judgment J. S. Khehar, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not wish to press the instant writ petition qua petitioners No.1, 3 and 12 (S/shri Kasturi Lal, Tarsem Singh and Jagroop Singh ). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are substantively members of the service of the Department of irrigation and Power. In this behalf, it is pointed out that consequent upon their induction into service, they have been discharging their duties under the chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi Township, pathankot. Despite the aforesaid, they were deputed to discharge their duties in the social Security Women and children Development Department, without obtaining their consent. In this behalf it is emphasized that the posts against which they have been transferred are not part and parcel of the cadre of the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, or for that matter, of the department of Irrigation and Power. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot be transferred by way of deputation to discharge duties in the social Security Women and Children Development Department, without their express. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out from the pleadings of the written statements placed on the record of this case, that the petitioners (other than petitioners No.1, 3 and 12), had ever accepted to be appointed by way of transfer on deputation to the Social Security Women and Children Development department. 4. In such circumstances it is submitted that the appointment by way of deputation of the petitioners is unacceptable in law. In order to substantiate his aforesaid assertions, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies on a decision rendered by this Court in Narinder Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.12984 of 2003, decided on 19.2.2004 ). where an identical controversy arose before this Court, in respect of employees of the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project of the department of Irrigation and Power, who had been transferred by way of deputation to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, without their consent. The prayer made by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition, was accepted on 19.2.2004, for the solitary reason, that their consent had not been obtained prior to their appointment by way of deputation. 5. The prayer made by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition, was accepted on 19.2.2004, for the solitary reason, that their consent had not been obtained prior to their appointment by way of deputation. 5. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the instant writ petition is liable to be allowed (except petitioners No.1, 3 and 12) in the same terms as the decision rendered by this Court in Narinder singhs case (supra ). Ordered accordingly. 6. In so far as petitioners No.1,3 and 12 are concerned, liberty is sought to allow them to move representations, if they so desire, on the administrative side, for the redressal of their grievance. Prayer is allowed. Liberty sought is granted. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.