Judgment :- M.VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The Appellant/Second Respondent has filed the present Writ Appeal as against the order dated 09.02.2012 in W.P.No.17728 of 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge while passing the orders in the Writ Petition had inter alia observed that .........'the 3rd Respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., should at least allow the petitioner (First Respondent) to go on deputation and further opined that 'the Petitioner (First Respondent) has only less than 10 months of service' and has come to the conclusion that the refusal of the 3rd Respondent to give concurrence at least for the appointment of the Petitioner (the First Respondent) as Company Secretary in the Second Respondent Corporation is unreasonable and allowed the Writ Petition, by directing the 3rd Respondent to give concurrence within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the appointment of the Petitioner (First Respondent) as Company Secretary in the Second Respondent Corporation and also directed the Second Respondent to pass appropriate order, within two weeks of the 3rd Respondent Corporation giving its concurrence. 3. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Respondent that the Learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that the feeder cadre for the post of Company Secretary is the post of Assistant Manager, but, the First Respondent/Petitioner is only a Senior Superintendent. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Respondent submits that the Learned Single Judge had not taken into account of the plea of the Appellant/Second Respondent that the services of the First Respondent/Petitioner have been utilised on deputation as Company Secretary in the cadre of Senior Superintendent. 5. Yet another contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Respondent is that the Learned Single Judge had incorrectly allowed the Writ Petition thereby enabling the First Respondent/Petitioner to claim the post of Company Secretary in the cadre of Deputy Manager which is against the Service Rules. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Respondent submits that even in the application for appointment for the post of Company Secretary, the First Respondent/Petitioner had not made a claim to the post of Company Secretary in the cadre of Deputy Manager. However, this important fact has been lost sight of by the Learned Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition. 7. However, this important fact has been lost sight of by the Learned Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition. 7. In response, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Petitioner that the First Respondent/ Petitioner's Educational Qualification is B.Com., M.Com., and B.G.L., and also that, he is an Associate Member of the Company Secretary of India after having passed in the final exam held by the Institute of Company Secretary of India in December, 2006 and therefore, is entitled to be appointed as Company Secretary in any Organisation. 8. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Petitioner submits that the First Respondent/Petitioner has come to know that the Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai was in need of Company Secretary and the First Respondent/Petitioner submitted two applications to the Appellant/Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai on 29.09.2008 and 06.11.2008, when he was working in Tamilnadu State Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Chennai. 9. Further, the First Respondent/Petitioner also applied on 01.02.2011 to the Appellant/Second Respondent/Transport Corporation for the post of Company Secretary without prejudice to his service, pension, all other retirement benefits etc., and that the Appellant/Second Respondent/Transport Corporation was willing to absorb him to serve as Company Secretary on deputation basis as per Letter No.024975/HR6/SETC TN 2008, dated 14.02.2011. However, the 3rd Respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., had not issued any relieving order to him till date. 10. The main plea of the First Respondent/Petitioner is that his date of retirement falls on 31.12.2012 ( in lieu of his date of birth being 01.01.1955) and although, he possessed full requisite qualification to promote him to the Cadre of 'Company Secretary', the 3rd Respondent/Transport Corporation had not chosen to offer him a chance of working as Company Secretary in any of the sister Transport Corporations on deputation basis with the scale of pay applicable to that post. 11. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Petitioner contends that the Respondents/Transport Corporations and the Appellant/Second Respondent/Transport Corporation though have a strength of more than 500 fleet of buses, the post of Company Secretary ought to be 'in the Cadre of Deputy Manager'. 12. 11. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Petitioner contends that the Respondents/Transport Corporations and the Appellant/Second Respondent/Transport Corporation though have a strength of more than 500 fleet of buses, the post of Company Secretary ought to be 'in the Cadre of Deputy Manager'. 12. The First Respondent/Petitioner contends that he projected a claim on 10.06.2011 to the Chairman of all State Public Transport Corporations and Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Transport Department making a request to promote him to the Cadre of Company Secretary (Managerial Cadre) with retrospective effect from 20.06.2008 in the scale of pay applicable to that post and post him as 'Company Secretary' in the Appellant/Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation and that his plea was not considered. 13. According to the Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent, the qualifications prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel)/Assistant Manager (Admn.) was by way of transfer from among the holders of the post of Assistant Manager (Legal) (or) by means of promotion from among the holders of the posts of Senior Superintendent (Administration and Accounts) and Senior Superintendent (Legal) who possess a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce of B.L., Degree and who had experience in the field of personnel Management (or) by way of promotion from among the holders of the posts of Senior Superintendent (Administration and Accounts) who Possess Minimum General Educational Qualification with experience of not less than 10 years in supervisory position or at least 5 years must have been in the Personnel Department or by direct recruitment. 14. The contention of the 3rd respondent is that the First Respondent/Petitioner was not eligible to be considered for the post of Company Secretary in the Cadre of Deputy Manager/Assistant Manager either by promotion or Direct recruitment and also that, he was not eligible to be considered for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Manager since he had put in less than 10 years of service in the Supervisory Position. Besides this, even though the First Respondent/Petitioner was qualified ACS during December, 2006, as per the qualification prescribed, he was less then 5 years of experience in the secretarial section (i.e. 2 years 8 months) TDFC 1 year 6 months and 18 days, TNSTC (Salem) 1 year 1 month and 20 days. Besides this, even though the First Respondent/Petitioner was qualified ACS during December, 2006, as per the qualification prescribed, he was less then 5 years of experience in the secretarial section (i.e. 2 years 8 months) TDFC 1 year 6 months and 18 days, TNSTC (Salem) 1 year 1 month and 20 days. Another contention of the 3rd Respondent is that even though a person was fully qualified to hold the prescribed post, elevation to higher grade would be based on the vacancy. 15. The Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent/Transport Corporation brought to the notice of this Court that the First Respondent/Petitioner was deputed in the existing cadre and reverted back to the 3rd Respondent/Transport Corporation from Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) where he was paid according to the category. Furthermore, the First Respondent/Petitioner was promoted as a Senior Superintendent with effect from 01.11.2006 and Monetary Effect was given on 08.12.2009 only after the closer of charges pending against him. 16. The Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent contends that normal course of time bound promotion in respect of the First Respondent/Petitioner was postponed due to pending charges against him and that while he was working in the legal section, he was inflicted with 31 punishments. 17. The Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent submits that one B.Thamizhselvan, was appointed as Junior Superintendent based on the qualification of B.Com., and ICWA (inter) on 07.04.1997 and was deputed to IRT Perundurai Medical College Hospital with effect from 16.03.2002 and absorbed permanently in that organization with effect from 01.04.2003. Another contention advanced on behalf of the 3rd Respondent is that the 3rd Respondent/Transport Corporation had expressed its inability to depute the First Respondent/Petitioner to the Appellant/Second Respondent/Transport Corporation for want of sufficient Administration Staff at Kancheepuram Region and if the Appellant/Second Respondent/Transport Corporation was in need of filling the post of Company Secretary, it was open to them to fill up the said post at their option. 18. 18. The Appellant/2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation in the counter to the Writ petition had stated that as per the Common Service Rules, the Corporation may fill up the vacancy either by transfer from among the holders of any post in the Administration Department in the Cadre of Assistant Manager, who possess the qualification prescribed for recruitment or by direct recruitment and the Appellant/Second Respondent/Transport Corporation was not one among the employees possessing the qualification of ACA and ACS at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the Government directed the filling up post of Company Secretary by recruiting a qualified person from other Public Sector Undertakings/Boards or Government Department on deputation basis and the Board had resolved to approve and authorize the Managing Director to appoint a Company Secretary (Assistant Manager's Cadre) to the Appellant/Second Respondent/Transport Corporation by direct recruitment as per the qualification/conditions prescribed in the Common Service Rules of the Corporation. 19. As a follow up, the Assistant Director, Professional & Execute Employment Exchange, Santhome, Chennai -600 004 was addressed to sponsor the list of candidates to conduct interview. The Assistant Director, Employment Exchange, Chennai sponsored a list containing names of 5 candidates. On 04.03.2010, an interview was conducted for the only candidate, namely, Tmt. M.G.Shanthi, who turned up for the interview, whose qualification was that she completed the ACS qualification during December, 2008, M.Com., degree in December, 1996, B.Com., in April, 1991 and further she was working as Assistant and Steno-typist in SIPCOT. But, she had not satisfied the condition that a candidate should have held a responsible position in the Transport Corporation Secretarial Section or larger Industrial concern for a period of not less than 5 years as per the condition prescribed in Common Service Rule Appendix II part (a). Therefore, she was not selected by the Committee. 20. The 3rd Respondent in its counter to the Writ Petition had stated that the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Company Secretary in the Assistant Manager Cadre was by means of Transfer from among the holders of any post in the Administration Department in the Cadre of Assistant Manager who possess the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment or by direct recruitment . 21. 21. At this stage, we aptly cite Rule 47 of the 3rd Respondent/ Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Kancheepuram Region Common Service Rule under Chapter VI, Foreign Service, under the head, 'Conditions of Transfer to Foreign Service' which run as follows; “47. Conditions of transfer to foreign service. (a) No employee may be transferred to foreign service against his will. (b) A transfer to foreign service shall be sanctioned by the Competent Authority only with the approval of the Board in respect of personnel in the Managerial cadre, and of the Managing Director in the cases of other employees, and subject to the provisions of rule 4. (c) A transfer to foreign service is not admissible unless:- i. The duties to be performed after the transfer are such as should be rendered by an employee of the Corporation; ii. The employee who is to be transferred to foreign service has held for a period of not less than two years, at the time of transfer, a post paid from the revenues of the Corporation and is a permanent employee of the Corporation; iii. The foreign employer agrees to bear the entire cost of the service of the employee including the cost of pri-vileges and concessions, if any, admissible to the employees in the service of the Corporation and availed of by him during such service, except as otherwise provided in these rules; (d) The terms of foreign service shall not extend beyond the age of superannuation; (e) If an employee is transferred to foreign service while on leave, he shall cease, from the date of such transfer, to be on leave and to draw leave salary. (f) The terms and conditions of service shall, generally, be as given in the SCHEDULE IV. NOTE: Cases of employees recruited by a foreign employer by virtue of their direct applications and selection in competition with open market candidates, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, shall be excluded from the concept of deputation under Foreign Service. 22. (f) The terms and conditions of service shall, generally, be as given in the SCHEDULE IV. NOTE: Cases of employees recruited by a foreign employer by virtue of their direct applications and selection in competition with open market candidates, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, shall be excluded from the concept of deputation under Foreign Service. 22. It is to be borne in mind that Shedule IV (Referred to in Rule 47(f)) under the head 'Terms and Conditions of Foreign Service' in regard to a person deputed for appointment contains a condition that “(1) The appointment shall be for a period of one year in the first instance and may be continued if necessary upto a total period of three (3) years only on the whole, normally and for another one year in exceptional circumstances. (2) (i) He shall be allowed by the foreign employer (a) Pay as applicable to the post to which he is deputed, or (b) his grade Pay in Pallavan Transport Corporation, whichever he elects; etc.,” 23. The method of recruitment under Rule 59 in respect of Branch- III Administration Department Part A Managerial Cadre in Serial No.8 for the post of Assistant Manager (Finance and Accounts) Assistant Financial Controller, it is mentioned as follows; i. By promotion from among the holders of the post of Senior Superintendent (Accts./Admn), who possess a Degree in Arts or Science or Commerce and who have previous experience in Accounts Wing or who have passed the intermediate examination leading to ACA or AICAW and have completed the minimum qualifying period of service of 5 years as Sr.Supet.(Accounts) (or) ii. By promotion from among the holders of the posts of Senior Superintendent who possess MGEQ and have experience in Supervisory posts of for not less then ten years and have previous experience in the Accounts Wing. (or) iii. By direct recruitment. Note-1: The ratio between appointment by promotion from among Degree holders and others possessing MGEQ shall be 1:1 Note-2: The ratio between appointment by promotion and by direct recruitment shall be 1:1. 24. Further, the said Rule 59 in Serial No. 4, refers to the Post of Deputy Manager (Finance & Accounts)/ Deputy Financial Controller for which the mode of appointment and qualification, were mentioned as follows; “By promotion from among the holders of the posts of Assistant Manager (Finance & Accounts), Assistant Manager (Cost Accountants), and Asst. 24. Further, the said Rule 59 in Serial No. 4, refers to the Post of Deputy Manager (Finance & Accounts)/ Deputy Financial Controller for which the mode of appointment and qualification, were mentioned as follows; “By promotion from among the holders of the posts of Assistant Manager (Finance & Accounts), Assistant Manager (Cost Accountants), and Asst. Financial Controller who possess a Degree in Arts or Science or Commerce and who have passed ACA and AICWA Examination.” 25. For the post of Secretary (Deputy Manager's grade) mode of appointment and qualification were prescribed is under; “(1) Must have passed ACA or AICWA examination or must possess a Post-Graduate Degree in Management Science or a post graduate degree in law; (2) Must have passed the company Secretary's examination (A.C.S) of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India. (3) Must have held the post of Secretary in a large Company for a period of not less than five years.” 26. For the post of Secretary (Assistant Manager's Grade) mode of appointment and qualification were prescribed as follows; “(1) Must possess a Degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or law. (2) Must have passed the Company Secretary's examination (A.C.S.) of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India. (3) Must have held a responsible position in the Secretarial Section of a large industrial concern for a period of not less than five years.” 27. The learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Petitioner submits that the First Respondent/Petitioner discharged the duties of Company Secretary upto 05.03.2009 (as per posting order 7763/2007 dated 30.06.2008). But he was paid salary applicable to the post of Superintendent in the time scale of pay of Rs.5400-125-7900 as per terms and conditions annexed with the deputation order. 28. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Petitioner refers to Common Service Rule 50 applicable to all State Transport Corporations, which enjoins as under; “50. Drawal of Pay and Allowances, etc., while in Foreign Service. a. An employee in foreign service will draw pay and allowances from the foreign employer from the date on which he relinquishes charge of his post in the service of the Corporation while on duty, or from the date on which he is transferred to foreign service while on lease. Drawal of Pay and Allowances, etc., while in Foreign Service. a. An employee in foreign service will draw pay and allowances from the foreign employer from the date on which he relinquishes charge of his post in the service of the Corporation while on duty, or from the date on which he is transferred to foreign service while on lease. b. The amount of his Pay while on foreign service and the period of joining time that may be allowed to him (not exceeding the period to which he may be entitled under Rule 46) shall be fixed by the authority in consultation with the foreign employer. c. When the transfer of an employee to foreign service is sanctioned, the pay which he shall receive in such service, together with any remuneration or any concession of pecuniary value in addition to his pay, shall be precisely specified in the order sanctioning the transfer, subject to the following general conditions:- i. No concession shall be sanctioned in addition to pay, except > 1. Payment of Provident Fund Contribution by the foreign employer; 2. Grant of Travelling Allowance and grant of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowances and other compensatory allowances, provided that the foreign employer meets the cost of such allowances. ii. No employee shall be permitted to receive any remuneration or any concession which is not so specified. If the order is lilent as to any particular item of remuneration or concession, it must be assumed that the intention is that it shall not be enjoyed. iii. The terms granted must not be such as to impose and unnecessarily heavy burden on the foreign employer and must not be so greatly in excess of the remuneration which the employee would receive in the Corporation's service as to render foreign service appreciably more attractive than the Corporation's service. Provided that, if his transfer to foreign service involves assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to his post in the Corporation, his pay in foreign service may, as a special case, be fixed by the Corporation in consultation with the foreign employer, with due regard both to his status and Pay in the Corporation and to the nature of work for which he is transferred. and strenuously contends that the First Respondent/ Petitioner served as Company Secretary for the period from 02.08.2007 to 05.03.2009 and from 14.12.2009 to 31.01.2011 with the condition that he would continue to pay the same scale of pay applicable to Superintendent post. 29. Further, the First Respondent/Petitioner was again deputed to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Salem to serve as Company Secretary as per the terms and conditions annexed. Here again, he was only paid salary applicable to the Superintendent post and on both occasions, he was not paid the salary applicable to the Company Secretary, although he performed the duties as Company Secretary. 30. To lend support to the contention of the First Respondent/Petitioner that he was not paid the salary applicable to the post of Company Secretary( though he discharged the duties of Company Secretary) for two times earlier, the Learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Petitioner cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary cum Chief Engineer, Chandigarh V. Hari Om Sharma And Others [(998) 5 Supreme Court Cases at page 87], whereby and whereunder, in paragraph 8, it is held as follows; “Apart from the fact that the Government in its capacity as a model employer cannot be permitted to raise such an argument, the undertaking which is said to constitute an agreement between the parties cannot be enforced at law. An agreement that if a person is promoted to the higher posts or put to officiate on that post or, as in the instant case, a stop-gap arrangement is made to place him on the higher post, he would not claim higher salary or other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and also against public policy. It would therefore bde unenforceable in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act,1872.” 31. In this connection, the First Respondent/Petitioner in his letter dated 01.02.2011 addressed to the Appellant/Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai has, inter alia, referred to his earlier experience working as Company Secretary in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Development Corporation Ltd., Chennai and requested to consider his name for the post of Company Secretary in the Appellant/Second Respondent Transport Corporation Ltd., without prejudice to his service, pension and all other retirement benefits. 32. 32. The terms and conditions of deputation of Thiru.K.Murugesan, Deputy Manager of S.E.T.C Ltd., Chennai to Tamil Nadu Medical Services Ltd., Chennai, (as seen from the typed set of papers) speaks of the terms and conditions of pay/HRA/CCA which runs as follows; 1. PAY/HRA/CCA While on foreign service, i.e from One Corporation/Board to another Corporation/Board, the officer shall draw the pay and allowances admissible to him in his post in the parent organization and the usual allowances viz., DA,HRA and CCA at the rates admissible in the parent organization. Clause 19 of the terms and conditions of deputation (in respect of one K.Murugesan, Deputy Manager) refers to deputation pay which is extracted hereunder; “DEPUTATION PAY The foreign employer shall pay a deputation pay to the deputationist, at the rate of 10% of grade pay subject to a maximum of Rs.250/- p.m and such deputation will be for a maximum period of 3 years. However, this will not be applicable to employees of a STU deputed to another STU.” 33. In the instant Writ Petition, the First Respondent/Petitioner had not challenged the terms and conditions of deputation either relating to PAY/HRA/CCA or the deputation pay to be paid by the Foreign Employer. At the risk of repetition, we point out that the relief sought for by the First Respondent/Petitioner in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.17728 of 2011 refers to his request for considering the application dated 01.02.2011 addressed to the Appellant/Second Respondent-Transport Corporation in the light of the organisation chart having the level of Company Secretary equal to Deputy Manager Grade, etc., Therefore, it is not open to the First Respondent/Petitioner to raise an alien plea that he was not paid the salary of Company Secretary though he discharged the duties of Company Secretary for two times earlier in (1) the Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd., on deputation basis and later on (2) at the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,. To put it differently, it is not open to the First Respondent/Petitioner to come out with the plea at the later point of time that the non payment of higher salary in the cadre of Company Secretary was contrary to Law and also opposed to public policy, since he is estopped by his own act or conduct which precludes him from asserting a right which by his implied conduct unerringly point out that he would not assert. Also, in order to find an estoppel, the representation viz., a party's declaration, act or omission, must be clear, definite, unambiguous and unequivocal. Moreover, the rule of estoppel will prevail over a pure rule of procedure. After all, the principle of estoppel is based upon the change of position brought about by the representation or acting of the person bound by estoppel as per decision (Jagannath v. Abdullah, 45 IA 97:45 C 909: 35 MLJ 46) 34. A perusal of the resolution of the Appellant/Second Respondent, dated 16.09.2010, shows that the Board had resolved to approve and authorize the Managing Director to appoint a Company Secretary (Assistant Manager's Cadre) to its Corporation directly through advertisement in Newspapers. The advertisement in an English Daily Newspaper, dated 13.11.2010 of the Appellant/Second Respondent speaks of inviting application for the post of Company Secretary with the qualification (1) Must possess a Degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or Law (2) Must have passed the Company Secretary's Examination (ACS) of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India. (3) Must have held a responsible position in the secretarial section of Large Industrial Concern for a period of (5) years. The age limit for the post of Company Secretary was mentioned as below; AGE LIMIT OC-30 YEARS +5*= 35 Years BC & MBC-35 Years+5*= 40 Years SC & ST-40 Years +5*=45 Years Concession will be given to unemployed youth as per instruction in Government Lr.No.73865/BPE/2006, Finance (BPE) Department, dated 04.12.2006 and Letter No.1316/C1/2007-1 dated 25.01.2007 Transport (C1) Department. The pay scale was prescribed as Rs.15600-39100 Grade Pay Rs.5400/-. It was also informed that condition would be given to unemployee youth as per instruction. 35. On 31.01.2011, the Appellant/Second Respondent had addressed a letter to all the other Transport Corporation in the State requesting for making necessary arrangements to bring to the notice of all qualified eligible candidates and to send their name of the willing candidates to serve in Appellant/Second Respondent Transport Corporation, Chennai on deputation basis along with their Bio-Data and other details so as to reach its office on or before 15.02.2011. 36. 36. The Appellant/Second Respondent-Transport Corporation in its communication dated 14.02.2011 in Letter No.024975/HR6/SETCTN/2008 addressed to the 3rd Respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram had conveyed their concurrence for the absorption of the First Respondent/Petitioner in their Corporation on deputation basis for one year as per the existing rules in force and requested the 3rd respondent to convey its concurrence and if agreed to issue necessary orders. 37. The 3rd Respondent/Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., in its Letter dated 06.05.2011 addressed to the Appellant/Second Respondent had, inter alia, stated that in the Kancheepuram region during December ending 2011 totally 14 Administration Supervisor were to retire from service and in view of the deficiency staff at the administrative side, the First Respondent/Petitioner could not be sent for deputation on Foreign Service. 38. On a careful consideration of respective contentions, we are of the considered view that the First Respondent/Petitioner was not eligible to be considered for the post of Company Secretary in the Cadre of Deputy Manager/Assistant Manager either by promotion or direct recruitment (as per Common Service Rules of the Transport Corporation) and also that he could not be considered for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Manager, since he had put in less than 10 years of service in the Supervisory position. (notwithstanding the fact, he acquired ACS qualification during December, 2006.) 39. We also opine that the First Respondent/Petitioner had only put in 2 years and 8 months experience in the Secretarial Section instead of requisite 5 years experience as prescribed. Looking at from any angle, we unhesitatingly hold that the Writ Petition in W.P.No.17728 of 2011 filed by the First Respondent/Petitioner is devoid of merits. We also hold that the contra views taken by the Learned Single Judge, inter alia, to the effect that ..........But since that sense of pride is not there with the 3rd Respondent Corporation, they should at least allow the petitioner (First Respondent) to go on deputation and that the Petitioner (First Respondent) has only less than 10 months of service. We also hold that the contra views taken by the Learned Single Judge, inter alia, to the effect that ..........But since that sense of pride is not there with the 3rd Respondent Corporation, they should at least allow the petitioner (First Respondent) to go on deputation and that the Petitioner (First Respondent) has only less than 10 months of service. Therefore, the refusal of the 3rd Respondent to give concurrence at least for the appointment of the Petitioner (the First Respondent) as Company Secretary in the Second Respondent Corporation, namely, the Appellant is unreasonable and resultantly, allowing the Writ Petition, by issuing a positive direction to the 3rd Respondent to give concurrence within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the appointment of Company Secretary in the Second Respondent Corporation and within two weeks of the 3rd Respondent Corporation giving its concurrence, the Second Respondent (Appellant) shall pass appropriate orders, are untenable in Law. Viewed from that angle, the Writ Appeal succeeds. 40. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed, leaving parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17728 of 2011 dated 09.02.2012 in allowing the Writ Petition is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.