JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure-3 which has been issued by the Director of the National Institute of Engineering (hereinafter referred to as the NIT). By the said annexure, the decision of the Board of Governors of the NIT has been communicated to the petitioners and other employees mentioned therein, that in case they want to be retained in the service of the NIT, they would have the option of approaching the Patna University and getting their applications forwarded by the Patna University. Such applicants would be treated as contractual employees and their case for absorption in the NIT would be considered by the Screening Committee of the NIT, Patna subject to the approval of the Board of Governors of the NIT. 2. Petitioner no. 1 was appointed on compassionate ground as a Class ill employee by the Patna University and posted in the I.Sc. Section of the then Bihar College of Engineering which would be apparent from Annexure-1 and Annexure- A (counter affidavit of the Patna University). Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are direct recruits appointed on Class IV posts by an advertisement issued by the Bihar College of Engineering under the Patna University and were posted in the I.Sc. Section of the Bihar College of Engineering which would be apparent from Annexure-B letter dated 29.1.1994 and Annexure-C which relates to the posting of petitioner no. 3 vide letter dated 24.8.1989. 3. The Bihar College of Engineering was taken over by the Central Government on 28.01.2004 and is now known as the National Institute of Technology. The employees of the Bihar College of Engineering along with the assets etc. of the Bihar College of Engineering came under the newly constituted National institute of Technology, Patna. The persons working in the Bihar College of Engineering were absorbed in the NIT. 4. The controversy arose when the NIT issued a memorandum contained in Annexure-11 dated 06.10.2004 asking the petitioners and others to exercise their options by giving a statement as to whether they would be preferred to be retained as employees of the NIT or whether they would like to be treated to be the employees of Patna University. The petitioners gave options for being retained in service in the NIT which is contained in Annexure-12 of the writ application. The petitioners gave options for being retained in service in the NIT which is contained in Annexure-12 of the writ application. Subsequently, as mentioned earlier, the NIT rescinded from its stand and asked the petitioners to get the approval of the Patna University for the purpose of being treated as employees of the NIT. 5. The stand of the NIT is that the petitioners were never the employees of the NIT, rather they were the employees of the Patna University and were posted in the I.Sc. Section of the then Bihar College of Engineering. It is not disputed that during their tenure in the Bihar College of Engineering (now NIT), they worked on several posts which were not strictly related to the I.Sc Section of the Bihar College of Engineering, even after the Bihar College of Engineering was taken over by the NIT. 6. The Patna University has come up with a stand that the petitioners were the employees of the Patna University. They were appointed by the Patna University and posted in the I.Sc. Section of the Bihar College of Engineering. They were never treated by the Patna University to be the employees of the Bihar College of Engineering. As stated earlier, the letters of appointment and postings indicate that the stand of the Patna University is not quite correct, for the reason that once the Patna University has accepted the fact that the petitioners were employees of the Patna University, it could not rescind from this stand. Once it is established from the documents on record that the petitioners are the employees of the Patna University, the issuance of Annexure-17 posting the petitioners in various colleges of the Patna University treating them to be on deputation to the Colleges as mentioned in Annexure- 17, raises certain implications which would affect the services of the petitioners. 7. The problem arose when the I.Sc. Section of the Bihar College of Engineering was scrapped. The petitioners were, therefore, left without posting and had to be either absorbed by the Patna University or by the NIT. The NIT has eventually treated them to be the employees of the Patna University and finds itself unable to absorb them in the services of the NIT, whereas the Patna University is now meting a step- fatherly treatment to the petitioners by taking a stand that since the I.Sc. The NIT has eventually treated them to be the employees of the Patna University and finds itself unable to absorb them in the services of the NIT, whereas the Patna University is now meting a step- fatherly treatment to the petitioners by taking a stand that since the I.Sc. Section of the Bihar College of Engineering has been abolished, the employees working in the I.Sc. Section are no longer required, as the very course for which they were engaged/ appointed has been scrapped. 8. This Court finds that the stand taken by the Patna University is inconsistent with the fact that the petitioners were regularly employed in the Patna University and the employment/advertisement was not restricted for the I.Sc. Section of the Patna University, it would be apparent from their letters of appointment and advertisement, which indicates that it was an advertisement for general employment for different Colleges of Patna University. It is well settled that a deputationist has no right and as such Annexure-17 treating the petitioners to be on deputation in the various Colleges of the Patna University puts a clout on what is otherwise a substantive appointment in the Patna University. 9. I, therefore, direct that the Vice Chancellor of the Patna University should amend Annexure-17 and treat the petitioners to be on regular appointees of the Patna University and accordingly, post them in the Colleges of the Patna University as mentioned at Annexure-17. The stand of the Patna University that the petitioners are on deputation is thus rejected. 10. The prayer of the petitioners that the NIT should act in accordance with Annexure-11 and the issuance of Annexure- 13, relieving the petitioners from NIT with immediate effect, cannot be allowed for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. 11. Accordingly, this writ application is partly allowed to the extent that the petitioners should be treated as regular employees of the Patna University and not as deputationist.