Judgment :- 1. In April 1987, the petitioner was selected in TNPSC and appointed as Junior Inspector. On 30.9.1992, he was promoted as Senior Inspector. He served in Cooperative Department, the parent department, as Senior Inspector upto 30.8.1995. 2. Thereafter, on 31.8.1995, he was sent on deputation from the Cooperative department to the Office of the Regional Director of Audit for Milk Cooperative. 3. While he was serving in foreign service, he gave a letter dated 13.9.1999 expressing his unwillingness for his continuance in foreign service and he sought to come back to parent department. The petitioner again gave similar representation on 8.8.2000 regarding his unwillingness to continue in the deputed post. 4. While so, in the panel dated 1.5.2000 of the Senior Inspectors fit for promotion to the post of Cooperative Sub-Registrar the petitioners name was included. Based on the panel, the petitioner was promoted by an order dated 20.6.2001 as Cooperative Sub-Registrar and he was posted in Erode Region. He was re-posted as Cooperative Sub-Registrar for public distribution, Kodimudi on 16.7.2011. 5. While so, he was reverted to the post of Senior Inspector by the impugned order dated 31.8.2001 of the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner was on deputation for more than 5 years and he is entitled to promotion only after one year service in the parent department. 6. The petitioner has filed O.A.No.6122 of 2001 (W.P.No.5023 of 2007) seeking to quash the order dated 31.8.2001 of the first respondent and the consequential order dated 11.9.2001 of the second respondent. 7. While admitting the Original Application on 19.9.2001, the Tribunal granted interim stay. In view of the interim order, he is continuing as Cooperative Sub Registrar. 8. On abolition of the Tribunal, O.A.No.6122 of 2001 got transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.5023 of 2007. 9. No counter affidavit is filed. 10. Heard both sides. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was retained in foreign service beyond 5 years contrary to Rule 110 of the Fundamental Rules. Further, it is submitted that he expressed his unwillingness on 13.9.1999 and 8.8.2000 to work in the foreign service. Therefore he could not be blamed for continuance in the foreign service beyond 5 years. 12. Further, it is submitted that he expressed his unwillingness on 13.9.1999 and 8.8.2000 to work in the foreign service. Therefore he could not be blamed for continuance in the foreign service beyond 5 years. 12. He has also produced a letter dated 7.8.1991 from the Personnel and Administrative .Reforms (Per.S) Department dated 7.8.1991 making it clear that if an individual is not willing to revert to his former post in the regular line even after 5 years, he would be permitted to continue in foreign service and he would not be eligible for inclusion in the panel and in the case of others, the promotion could not be denied. Hence he prays for quashing the impugned order. 13. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader seeks to sustain the impugned order based on oral instructions. 14. The learned Special Government Pleader relies on Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. 15. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 16. Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and more particularly, the proviso is relied on by the respondents. Rule 9 and its proviso is extracted hereunder:- "9. Members absent from duty -The absence of a member of a service from duty in such service, whether on leave, or on foreign service or on deputation or for any other reason and whether his lien in a post borne on the cadre of such service is suspended or not, shall not, if he is otherwise fit, render him ineligible in his turn. (a) for re-appointment to a substantive or officiating vacancy in the class, category, grade or post in which he may be a probationer or an approved probationers: (b) for promotion from a lower to higher category in such service; (c) for appointment to any substantive or officiating vacancy in another service for which he may be an approved candidate, as the case may be, in the same manner as if he had not been absent. He shall be entitled to all the privileges in respect of appointment, seniority, promotion and appointment as full member which he would have enjoyed but for his absence subject to his completing satisfactorily the period of probation on his return. He shall be entitled to all the privileges in respect of appointment, seniority, promotion and appointment as full member which he would have enjoyed but for his absence subject to his completing satisfactorily the period of probation on his return. (d) for appointment to any substantive or officiating vacancy in another service, ifaccording to the rules governing appointment to such other service- (i) he is entitled to such appointment; and (ii) the normal method of recruitment to such other service is by transfer from the service of which he is a member of any class or category thereof. Provided that a member of a service who is appointed to another service outside his regular line and is continuing in that service beyond five years shall not be considered for promotion or for appointment by recruitment by transfer to a higher post in his regular line eventhough he is otherwise qualified under the rules for such promotion or appointment, unless he returns to the former service and puts in a fresh service for a period of not less than one year in his post in the former service." 17. It is true that if a person continues beyond 5 years in foreign service, he cannot be considered for promotion in the parent department unless he returns to parent department and puts in a service of not less than one year. But, if the concerned Government servant is retained in the foreign service, against his willingness, beyond 5 years, the Government servant could not be denied promotion on the ground that he was in foreign service beyond 5 years. 18. In this case, the petitioner gave his letters dated 13.9.1999 and 8.8.2000 expressing his unwillingness to work in foreign service. The same is not disputed. Furthermore, Rulings 4 of Rule 110 of the Fundamental Rules contemplates that a Government Servant could be sent on deputation initially for three years and thereafter he could be recalled to the parent department. The said procedure is not followed by the Cooperative department, for which, the petitioner could not be found fault with. Rulings 4 is extracted hereunder:- "4(i) The initial deputation of a Government servant shall be sanctioned for a block period of three years at a stretch. The said procedure is not followed by the Cooperative department, for which, the petitioner could not be found fault with. Rulings 4 is extracted hereunder:- "4(i) The initial deputation of a Government servant shall be sanctioned for a block period of three years at a stretch. The period of the said deputation shall lapse on the expiry of the said period of three years or on the date of his retirement from service on superannuation or on the date when he is transferred from the services of the foreign employer by the competent authority, whichever is earlier. 4(ii) No extension of deputation of any Government servant shall be sanctioned for the fourth year. However, the Government may, in exceptional and special circumstances in public interest, sanction the extension of deputation for the fourth year in respect of any Government servant. 4(iii) In case the Government require the services of Government servants in the middle of three years period for administrative reason the competent authority may revert them to their parent department." 19. The Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department, taking into consideration of the above fact, issued a letter dated 7.8.1991 to all the Heads of Departments to get a declaration from the person in foreign service or on deputation beyond five years, in writing, expressing his willingness to continue in foreign service, so as not to include him in the panel of promotion in the parent department. 20. Therefore, in the said letter dated 7.8.1991, the Government directed all the departments to get a declaration from the employees serving in foreign department and to seek their willingness as to whether they want to continue in foreign service or to be reverted back to parent department. But, in the case of the petitioner, though he sought reversion to his parent department, the same is not done as per letter dated 7.8.1991 and no declaration was also sought from him. 21. Taking into account the aforesaid fact, he was rightly included in the panel of the year 2000 for the post of Cooperative Sub-Registrar and he was also given promotion and thereafter he was sought to be reverted by the impugned order and he is reverted and he is also directed to serve in the parent department for one year. 21. Taking into account the aforesaid fact, he was rightly included in the panel of the year 2000 for the post of Cooperative Sub-Registrar and he was also given promotion and thereafter he was sought to be reverted by the impugned order and he is reverted and he is also directed to serve in the parent department for one year. After coming to parent department, if he was not given promotion, he would be put to in a disadvantageous position and his juniors could march over him. The retention of the petitioner beyond 5 years is not due to his fault. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. 22. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.