JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the opp. party No. 1 and Mr. Ashok Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for opp. party No. 2. 2. The Petitioner, who is serving as an Asst. Engineer (Civil) in the Directorate, Physical Plant under the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar has filed this writ application assailing the decision of the authorities of O.U.A.T. to bring a deputationist from the State Government to the post of Director, Physical Plant/ Executive Engineer. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being a Graduate Engineer has completed 22 years of service under the O.U.A.T. in the post of Junior Engineer as well as Asst. Engineer. Now, when the Petitioner is eligible to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, the opp. parties have decided to bring a Government Servant on deputation for the said post. 4. According to Mr. Mishra, person who is being brought on deputation from the Government will be appointed as per the norms and conditions prevailing since long. 5. It is brought to our notice that in a similar writ application being W.P.(C) No. 5717 of 2007 (Mirza Fakruddin Baig v. Vice Chancellor, Orissa University of Agriculture, Bhubaneswar and Anr.) decided on 22.3.2004, a collateral Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ application directing the opp. parties to consider the case of the Petitioner as against the vacancy filled up by deputation or against the vacancy arising out of superannuation. 6. We are surprised to note that there is nothing on record to show as to why such a norm has been adopted by the University Authorities, when in their own organization officers are available to man the next promotional posts. There is also nothing in the counter affidavit to show the exigency to avoid the case of the Petitioner for giving him promotion and to bring an official from the State Government to fill up the permanent post in the O.U.A.T. by deputation. 7. The Apex Court in the case of AIR 1988 1033 (SC) held that: Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. 7. The Apex Court in the case of AIR 1988 1033 (SC) held that: Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. 8. If the practice of bringing deputationist is allowed to continue, it will automatically result in creping inefficiency in the cadre thereby jeopardizing the interest of inefficiency in the cadre thereby jeopardizing the interest of the University. There is also nothing in the counter affidavit to show that the Petitioner is not qualified and eligible to get the promotional post. In absence of such, we are of considered opinion that the case of the Petitioner deserves consideration as against the post held by the deputationist and if the Petitioner is found suitable, appropriate steps shall be taken for his promotion to the post in which the deputationist is continuing. While considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion, the recommendation made in favour of the Petitioner vide Annexures-4 and 5 shall be taken into consideration. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 9. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. 10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.