Sanjay Misra,J:- The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 27 November 2013. 2. Admittedly, the appellant was sent on deputation as Assistant Coordinator in the Block Resource Centre under the National Literacy Mission. He was repatriated to his parent post of Head Master of a Primary Institution. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the circular dated 10 February 2011 of the second respondent to the District Basic Education Officer indicates that the selection and posting on deputation shall not be made without the approval of the District Magistrate. From this the learned counsel seeks to infer that even the repatriation must be only with the prior approval of the District Magistrate. There is no such restriction either explicit or implicit in the circular dated 10 February 2011. The appellant is only a deputationist who has no vested right to remain in the same post to which he was deputed. There was no adverse change in his service conditions. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relies on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. V. Ramakrishnan1. Dealing with the position of a deputationist, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. A deputationist indisputably has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. However, there is no bar thereto as well. It may be true that when deputation does not result in absorption in the service to which an officer is deputed, no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as he is continued to be a member of the parent service. When the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is male fide. An action taken in a post-haste manner also indicates malice (See Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia, (2004) 2 SCC 65 para 25.). 5. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is male fide. An action taken in a post-haste manner also indicates malice (See Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia, (2004) 2 SCC 65 para 25.). 5. In the present case, the order by which the appellant has been repatriated specifically notes the reasons why he has been sent back to his parent post. There was a complaint in regard to the unsatisfactory performance of the appellant. When a notice was sought to be issued to him, it has been stated that he had declined to even accept the notice. This is not one of those cases where it can be stated that the repatriation is vitiated by mala fides. Hence, no case for interference in the special appeal is made out. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________