Judgment [Per: Hon'ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. (Oral)] Sri Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Alok Singh, Senior Counsel with Sri D. Barthwal, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondents 3 and 5. None for respondent no. 4. They are heard on admission. 2. Petitioner Jagmohan Singh Chauhan has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "A. To issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20-11-2006 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition). B. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 4 to permit the petitioner to function as Project Manager in Project Management Unit, Swajal Project, District Dehradun till he completes the deputation period of three years. . C. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no. 2 from harassing or victimizing the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. . D. To issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. F. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. The petitioner, in substance, is seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 20-11-2006 (Annexure - 15) passed by respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department. 4. Petitioner Jagmohan Singh Chauhan, who was working as Deputy General Manager in Uttaranchal Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. was sent on deputation as Project Manager to Swajal Project vide order dated 11-10-2004 for a period of three years. It appears that after a period of about two years, the parent department felt acute need of the services of the petitioner and, therefore, impugned order dated 20-112006 was passed discontinuing the petitioner's deputation and of his repatriation to the parent department. 5. A deputationist has no legal right to continue on deputation and the parent department can pass an order of his repatriation even before the expiry of the period of deputation. That apart, the order of petitioner's deputation clearly stipulates that the petitioner can be called back to his parent department at any time and even before the expiry of the period of deputation. 6. That apart, the order of petitioner's deputation clearly stipulates that the petitioner can be called back to his parent department at any time and even before the expiry of the period of deputation. 6. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the petitioner has joined back his parent department during the pendency of the writ petition. 7. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 20th November, 2006 which may warrant interference in this writ petition. 8. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.