ORDER : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI') submits that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 27.07.2015, the Director General of Police, Government of West Bengal and the Director/Joint Director of CBI, in-charge of West Bengal, Sharda Scam Cases, held a meeting in which the issue regarding deputation of police officers from the State of West Bengal to the CBI was discussed as some length. He further submits that, according to the information available with him, the Director General of Police, West Bengal was not prepared to spare more than three Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), two Inspector, five Sub-Inspector and ten Constables to ease the manpower crunch faced by the CBI. He urged that the number of officers offered by the State Government was wholly insufficient for the CBI to deal with the large number of cases that stand transferred to it for investigation. Mr. Kumar also placed on record the vacancy position of the executive officers in the CBI and urged that as against the total cadre strength of 4544 officers of different-ranks ranging from Constables to the Director, CBI, the CBI is at present functioning only with a strength of 3790 officers leaving a deficit of 754 officers in different cadres. He is, however, unable to state as to the number of vacancies which the CBI is entitled to fill-up substantively as part of the CBI's own cadre strength and those that have to be filled-up by taking officers from other cadres on deputation. He sought some time to furnish the requisite information. He also sought time to place on record the relevant recruitment rules. 2. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal submitted that the number of officers required by the CBI to effectively take up the investigation, is indeed, large but the State has its own problems which cannot be ignored. He submitted that whatever number of officers the Court may direct the Government to spare will be spared but the State's own compulsion may also be kept in view while issuing any such direction. 3. He submitted that whatever number of officers the Court may direct the Government to spare will be spared but the State's own compulsion may also be kept in view while issuing any such direction. 3. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar, we are of the view that the number of officers offered by the State Government, ought to be doubled so that the CBI gets a reasonable number of officers to take up investigation in the pending matters. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, however, argued that the State is offering to spare officers by 'attachment' which means that the officers so provided will not remain under the disciplinary and administrative control of the CBI. This, according to Mr. Kumar, is likely to affect the efficacy of these officers and their independence in working and will not serve the purpose for which they are being taken into the CBI. That apart, the officers who are sent to the CBI must additionally satisfy the deputation criteria of the CBI. It was urged that the officers nominated by the State Government may or may not be found to be satisfying the deputation criteria of the CBI. Taking that aspect into consideration, we are of the view that the proper course would be to direct the State Government to prepare a panel of officers four times the number of officers offered by it to the CBI for deputation. This would mean that the State Government shall submit to the CBI a list of twelve Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), eight Inspector, twenty Sub-Inspector and forty Constables. The CBI would then examine the suitability of the officers so empanelled for being taken on deputation according to the criterion, if any, prevalent for that purpose. Once the CBI completes that process, the officers so identified/selected shall be deputed by the State Government to the CBI subject to the pay protection of such officers while on deputation and grant of all such service-benefits as are otherwise admissible to those serving in the CBI on deputation. Once the CBI completes that process, the officers so identified/selected shall be deputed by the State Government to the CBI subject to the pay protection of such officers while on deputation and grant of all such service-benefits as are otherwise admissible to those serving in the CBI on deputation. Needless to say that the CBI shall restrict its requirement to twice to the number of officers offered by the State meaning thereby that out of the twelve Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), eight Inspector, twenty Sub-Inspector and forty Constables enlisted by State of West Bengal, not more than six Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), four Inspector, ten Sub-Inspector and twenty Constables shall be taken by the CBI on deputation. We only hope that officers deputed by the State Government, even without their consent, will not approach us for cancellation of their deputation orders for investigation into cases transferred to the CBI is in public interest and those selected for serving the CBI will be responding to a call of duty to the nation which they are expected to willingly perform. Having said that, we make it very clear that no Court shall entertain any petition on behalf of any of the officers sent by the State of West Bengal on deputation to the CBI. Those against the deputation shall, however, be free to approach this Court for redress, if any. 4. The above arrangement can not, in our opinion, solve the manpower requirement of the CBI fully. The nature of the problem actually calls for intervention of this Court as deficiency in manpower is almost invariably projected as a reason for the inability of the CBI to take up matters whenever any question of reference to the CBI arises for consideration. The data furnished by Mr. Ranjit Kumar suggests that there are, at present, large number of vacancies in the CBI in different ranks. The information furnished, however, is deficient in as much as it is not clear as to how many of these vacancies are to be filled up on deputation basis and how many by making substantive appointments to the CBI cadre. Ranjit Kumar suggests that there are, at present, large number of vacancies in the CBI in different ranks. The information furnished, however, is deficient in as much as it is not clear as to how many of these vacancies are to be filled up on deputation basis and how many by making substantive appointments to the CBI cadre. We, therefore, deem it fit to direct the CBI to furnish the following information to enable this Court to issue appropriate directions in regard to filling up of the vacancies and, if necessary, revision of the cadre strength: (i) What is the current cadre strength of the CBI in different ranks from the post of Constable to the post of Director; (ii) when was the cadre strength last revised and by what order; (iii) what was the number of cases pending with the CBI on the date of the last revision of the cadre strength; (iv) what is the number of cases currently under investigation by the CBI; (v) what is the impediment in filling up the un-filled vacancies and what steps, if any, have been taken for filling up the available vacancies; (vi) is there any proposal for revision of the cadre strength. If there is none, what is the reason for the omission; (vii) what is the stage at which the process, if any, of filling up of the vacancies is currently stuck. 5. Mr. Ranjit Kumar prays for and is granted two weeks' time to furnish the above information on affidavit. These matters shall, accordingly, stand adjourned and shall be listed on 14.09.2015. 6. Needful be done in the meantime. SLP(C) No. 21834/2015 7. No one appears for the State of Assam despite service of notice. Petitioner is directed to serve the notice on the standing counsel for the State of Assam. 8. Dasti, in addition, is also permitted. 9. List the matter along with main matter on 14.09.2015.