JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned State counsel representing the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is a confirmed Govt. employee. His department is Rural Development Department, Govt. of Tripura. Before his deputation to the Respondent No. 4 he was serving in the State Level Monitoring Cell of SGSY Department under the Respondent No. 2. 3. Initially, the Petitioner had joined the services of the department as Lower Division Clerk (LDC). He was so appointed in the year 1990. Thereafter, in the year 1996 by an order dated 31.8.1996 the Petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and he continued in the said office. 4. By another order dated 17.1.2005, the Petitioner was further promoted to the post of Accountant in the same office, i.e. the Respondent No. 2. It is the stand of the Petitioner that his service is not transferable and his only office is under the Respondent No. 2 and that there is no other office or branch of the said office of the Respondent No. 2. 5. The Petitioner was sent on deputation for a period of one year to the office of the Project Director, DRDA, Dhalai at Ambassa (Respondent No. 4) by Annexure-7 order, dated 25.11.2009. In the order issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura in the Rural Development Department, there is no mention of any option being obtained from the Petitioner and also the terms and conditions of such deputation. Be that as it may, the Petitioner joined the place of his posting as he was released on 2.12.2009 from his office under the Respondent No. 2. 6. By Annexure-10 representation, dated 22.4.2010, the Petitioner made a request to the Director, State Level Monitoring Cell of SGSY, Rural Development Department, i.e. the Respondent No. 2 for withdrawal of his service from deputation and posting to his parent department. The application so made by the Petitioner was forwarded by the Project Director, DRDA, Dhalai vide Annexure-11 letter, dated 30.4.2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner made yet another representation dated 22.11.2010 to the Respondent No. 2 and the Govt. of Tripura, Rural Development Department. The said representation was also forwarded by the Project Director, DRDA vide his letter dated 7.12.2010. 7. The application so made by the Petitioner was forwarded by the Project Director, DRDA, Dhalai vide Annexure-11 letter, dated 30.4.2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner made yet another representation dated 22.11.2010 to the Respondent No. 2 and the Govt. of Tripura, Rural Development Department. The said representation was also forwarded by the Project Director, DRDA vide his letter dated 7.12.2010. 7. Instead of acceding to the said request of the Petitioner for his repatriation to the parent department, the Govt. of Tripura in the Rural Development Department issued the impugned Annexure-15 order dated 24.12.2010 addressed to the Project Director, DRDA communicating therein that the deputation period of the Petitioner stood extended for another period of one year w.e.f. 2.12.2010. As in the first order of deputation, in this order of extension also there is no reflection of obtaining any consent of the Petitioner and also of the terms and condition of such deputation. 8. Placing reliance on the Annexure-16 memorandum dated 16.9.1998, issued by the Govt. of Tripura in the Finance Department, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the Director (Projects), State Level Monitoring Cell of IRDP, Rural Development Department being the Head of Department for exercising the powers delegated to the Heads of Department, without the consent of the said Heads of Department, the Govt. of Tripura in the Rural Development Department could not have issued the Annexure-15 order, dated 24.12.2010 and that too without obtaining any consent either from the said Head of Department, i.e. the Respondent No. 2 or from the Petitioner. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondents, it has been contended that the impugned order has been issued exercising the power under FR 110. According to the Respondents, the DRDA being wholly controlled and owned by the Government, there is no requirement of obtaining the consent of the Govt. employee while sending him on deputation to the said organization. It has been stated that the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura in the Rural Development Department being the overall in-charge of DRDA is competent and clothed with power and jurisdiction to issue the impugned order. The Respondents have also enclosed the guidelines of DRDA administration (Annexure-R/1) 10. In the rejoinder affidavit, filed by the Petitioner, the stand in the writ petition has been reiterated. It has been stated that the Respondents have misinterpreted the provisions of FR 110. The Respondents have also enclosed the guidelines of DRDA administration (Annexure-R/1) 10. In the rejoinder affidavit, filed by the Petitioner, the stand in the writ petition has been reiterated. It has been stated that the Respondents have misinterpreted the provisions of FR 110. The stand of the Petitioner is that the DRDA is not wholly controlled and/or owned by the State Government, but it is a professional agency of Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India. The Petitioner has also brought on record that as against the initial fund pattern of DRDA, which was 75:25 share of both Central and State Government, the present fund pattern is 90:10 share w.e.f. 15.9.2008. Thus, according to the Petitioner, the DRDA being engaged with implementation of certain scheme on central fund is not an agency, which can be said to be wholly controlled and managed/owned by the State Government. In a nutshell, the case of the Petitioner is that he being a Govt. employee under the establishment of Respondent No. 2, could not have been sent to DRDA on deputation without taking his consent and also the consent of the Respondent No. 2, who is the Head of the Department. 11. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has produced a copy of the memorandum, dated 14.1.2007, by which one Shri Arabinda Das, Supervisor of Tripura Jute Mills Ltd., a Govt. of Tripura undertaking was appointed to the post of Rural Development Officer under DRDA, Dhalai District, Ambassa. Such appointment of Shri Arabinda Das was on deputation. For a ready reference, the order is reproduced below: Office of the Project Director District Rural Development Agency Dhalai District, Ambassa. F. No. 1(2)/Vol-1/DRDA (D)/ABS/07-08/3189-92 Date-14 Jan' 07 MEMORANDUM Subject: Officer of Appointment With reference to his prayer for the post of Rural Development officer, dated 10-10-06, Sri Arabinda Das, Supervisor of Tripura Jute Mills Ltd (A Govt. of Tripura undertaking) is hereby appointed to the post of Rural Development Officer under District Rural Development Agency, Dhalai District, ambassa in the Pay Scale of Rs.5500-150-7750-175-9500-200-10700 on deputation basis as per following terms and conditions. a. Appointment shall be on deputation basis without any deputation allowance. b. The deputation shall be treated as Foreign Services c. Other allowances and TA/DA etc. Shall be admissible as per State Govt. a. Appointment shall be on deputation basis without any deputation allowance. b. The deputation shall be treated as Foreign Services c. Other allowances and TA/DA etc. Shall be admissible as per State Govt. Rules d. No pension and leave Salary Contribution shall be borne by the DRDA, Dhalai for the deputation period. e. The deputation shall be counted from the date of release from the parent Deptt. f. Parent Deptt. Scale of pay may be opted by the incumbent concern. g. Period of deputation shall be for 1 (one) year which may be extended on satisfactory performance. Acceptance of this offer-cum-Appointment letter by Sri Das should reach the office of the DRDA, Dhalai on or before 22nd January, 07, Positively. Sd/- illegible (K. Ambuly) Chief Executive Officer, (DM & Collector) Dhalai, Ambassa. 12. From the above what is seen is that while taking the services of the said Shri Arabinda Das, an employee of Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. his consent was obtained, rather he was appointed on the basis of the prayer made by him. That apart, the terms and conditions of deputation were also clearly indicated in the order. Nothing of the sort was done in case of the Petitioner and he was straightway sent on deputation without making him known as to the terms and conditions of his deputation. When his deputation period was about to expire and even before that he made representation for his repatriation to the borrowing department. Instead of informing him about the fate of his representation, the Govt. of Tripura in the Rural Development Department issued the impugned order, dated 24.12.2010 extending his purported deputation for another one year w.e.f. 2.12.2010. Thus the Petitioner was condemned unheard. 13. F.R.110.(a) states that no Government servant may be transferred to foreign service against his will. Proviso to F.R.110.(a) states that this Sub-rule shall not apply to the transfer of a Government servant to the service of a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government. 14. It is in reference to the aforesaid proviso to F.R.110.(a). It is the stand of the Respondents that the DRDA being a wholly or substantially owned or controlled organization of the Govt. of Tripura, the consent of the Petitioner was not required to be obtained while he was sent on deputation. 15. 14. It is in reference to the aforesaid proviso to F.R.110.(a). It is the stand of the Respondents that the DRDA being a wholly or substantially owned or controlled organization of the Govt. of Tripura, the consent of the Petitioner was not required to be obtained while he was sent on deputation. 15. Before the aforesaid provision is invoked, it will have to be established that the DRDA is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Govt. of Tripura. In the counter-affidavit, the Respondents have annexed Annexure-R/1 guidelines on DRDA administration. In the said guidelines instructions have been issued under the heads, Preamble, Role and functions of the District Rural Development Agency, Organizational Structures of the DRD As, Administrative Costs, Personnel Policy of the DRD As, Administration of DRD As, Financial Procedures etc. As indicated in the Preamble, the DRDA has traditionally been the principal organ at the District level to oversee the implementation of different anti-poverty programmers. Its role and function is to co-ordinate with the line departments, the Panchayati Raj Institutions, the banks and other financial institutions, the NG Os as well as the technical institutions with a view to gathering the support and resources required for poverty reduction effort in the district. 16. Each District will have its own DRDA. Ordinarily it would be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. In order to be effective, the DRDA must have an appropriate staffing structure as well as suitable personnel policy. Its self-employment wing shall be headed Page 8 of 10 by a Project Officer and should have AP Os in the field of planning, social mobilization, credit and technology. 17. As noted above, the administrative cost was initially funded on a 75:25 ratio by the Central and State Government, which has since been made 90:10. 18. Under the head 'Personnel Policy of the DRD As', it has been stated that there is no uniform policy for engaging and/or recruiting the staff. It has also been stated that it is to follow prudent personnel policies as a professional agency to perform the tasks expected of it. It also speaks of taking employees on deputation to the DRDA for specific period as the same has the advantage of better choice of staff, flexibility in staffing pattern and/or motivating the staff. 19. It has also been stated that it is to follow prudent personnel policies as a professional agency to perform the tasks expected of it. It also speaks of taking employees on deputation to the DRDA for specific period as the same has the advantage of better choice of staff, flexibility in staffing pattern and/or motivating the staff. 19. Under the head 'Administration of DRD As', it has been provided that the role of DRDA is distinctly different from other institutions/departments and it is a part of the District. It shall be a registered society under the Societies Registration Act or a District cell in the Zilla Parishad having a separate identity. The administration of DRDA shall be carried out by a governing body, which will provide policy directions, approve the annual plan and also review and monitor the implementation of the plan etc. The aforesaid guidelines also provide the composition of a governing body. 20. Nowhere in the aforesaid guidelines there is an indication that the DRDA will be an authority wholly owned and/or controlled by the State Government. The whole emphasis is on its function under the guidelines of the Central Government scheme and also on the basis of the fund to Page 9 of 10 be provided by the Central Government and the State Government at the ratio of 90:10. 21. As noted above, the aforesaid guidelines speak of recruitment of personnel on deputation. However, the same does not indicate that DRDA being an agency wholly owned and/or controlled by the State Government any of the State Government employees can be deputed to the said agency without obtaining his consent or even the consent of the Head of the Department, i.e. the Respondent No. 2. 22. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, Tripura, 2007. Under Rule 21 dealing with deputation of State Govt. employee's specific provisions have been made for following the procedure for deputation laying down the terms and conditions of such deputation. As per the said provisions of Rule 21 prior approval of the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister is to be taken. In case of any deviation in respect of the terms and condition laid down under Rule 21, the concurrence of the Finance Department is necessary. 23. As per the said provisions of Rule 21 prior approval of the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister is to be taken. In case of any deviation in respect of the terms and condition laid down under Rule 21, the concurrence of the Finance Department is necessary. 23. It is not the case of the Respondents that in case of the Petitioner, the aforesaid procedure was followed and the required terms and condition were laid down. 24. Normally, a Govt. employee if sent on deputation at least should be apprised of the proposal for deputation, if not his consent. In the instant case, the Respondents did not even inform the Petitioner about the proposal to send him on deputation, not to speak of obtaining his consent. Not only that the Respondent No. 2, who is the Head of the Department was also not apprised of about the proposal to send the Petitioner on deputation. Everything was done in a hush hush manner and one fine morning the Petitioner was picked up for deputation firstly by the Annexure-7 order dated 25.11.2009 and thereafter, by the impugned order dated 24.12.2010 by which his deputation period of one year was extended for another one year w.e.f. 2.12.2010. In the process, the plea of the Petitioner that he could not have been sent on deputation and also that he is required to be repatriated to his parent department was totally ignored. The Petitioner was kept in complete dark about his status in the DRDA and also as to how his service conditions would be governed. 25. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure-15) is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the same is interfered with and stands set aside and quashed. The Petitioner shall now go back to his parent department. 26. In view of the above order, the Respondent No. 4 shall release the Petitioner enabling him to join his parent department forthwith. 27. The writ petition is allowed without, however, any order as to cost. Petition allowed.