JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. Both the writ appeals, arising out of common judgment and order dated 16.6.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No.903 of 2013 and WP(C) No.59 of 2016 were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. 2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the facts giving rise to these appeals need to be taken notice of, which are as follows:- 3. One L. Sahratchandra Singh, the appellant in both the cases, while serving as an Assistant Engineer in the Loktak Development Authority (LDA) (State Government Undertaking) was deputed on higher post of Executive Engineer in DRDA vide order dated 20.1.2003. Just after more than a year the services of the appellant-petitioner was absorbed in the DRDA vide order dated 30.6.2004. Consequently, the post of Assistant Engineer, which was held by the writ petitioner-appellant in the parent department (LDA), was filled up on regular basis on promotion. 4. It appears that when the Government came to know of such absorption of the writ petitioner-appellant in the borrowing department, the then Additional Chief Secretary (RD & PR) issued a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel on 27.9.2010 asking him to release the deputationist under the intimation of the Government by stating therein that the Government has never taken any decision for absorption of DRDA staffs and, thereby, any order passed by the Joint Secretary (RD) relating to absorption is void ab initio. The appellant challenged that order as contained in letter dated 27.9.2010 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, vide WP(C) No.635 of 2010 taking the plea that the said order is passed on false and fabricated letter dated 19.6.2010 purported to have been issued by the Union Minister, RD & PR as the said letter, later on was found to have been never issued by the Ministry. On the motion stage, when the aforesaid fact was placed before the Court, the operation of the order as contained in letter dated 27.9.2010 was suspended. On the motion stage, when the aforesaid fact was placed before the Court, the operation of the order as contained in letter dated 27.9.2010 was suspended. However, subsequently when the petitioner-appellant came to know that the parent department, i.e. LDA, by writing a letter dated 1.6.2011 has informed the Forest & Environment Department that the petitioner-appellant is not holding any lien over the post in LDA due to non availability of post, the petitioner withdrew the said WP(C) No.635 of 2010 and submitted a representation on 29.10.2012 before the authority requesting therein to withdraw the said order dated 27.9.2010. Before any decision could have been taken over that representation, petitioner came to know about the communication made by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, to the Additional Chief Secretary, RD & PR, seeking clarification over the letter dated 29.10.2012, filed another writ application bearing WP(C) No.432 of 2013 which was disposed of on 17.6.2013 directing the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 29.10.2012. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, the respondent, upon considering the representation rejected the representation vide its order dated 10.9.2013 stating therein that the Government had never taken any decision to regularise the services of to absorb the deputationist in the DRDA and thereby order of absorption is void ab initio and thereby the services of the writ petitioner-appellant are to be treated as on deputation, who has to be repatriated, on ascertainment that the writ petitioner is holding lien on his earlier post, to parent department. 5. Being aggrieved with that order, the writ petitioner-appellant challenged that order dated 10.9.2013 in WP(C) No.903 of 2013. It be stated that before the aforesaid writ application was filed by the writ petitioner-appellant, some of the employees of the DRDA filed a writ application bearing WP(C) No.267 of 2013 for issuance of writ of quo warranto for quashing of the order of absorption of the appellant on the post of Executive Engineer, DRDA Chandel. The said writ application was dismissed on the ground that they do not have locus standi to challenge the order of absorption of the appellant. 6. Those writ petitioners, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in which, upon notice being issued, the writ petitioner-appellant did appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said writ application was dismissed on the ground that they do not have locus standi to challenge the order of absorption of the appellant. 6. Those writ petitioners, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in which, upon notice being issued, the writ petitioner-appellant did appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, in the meantime, filed writ application before this Court bearing WP(C) No.903 of 2013, in which an interim order was passed on 20.12.2013 to the effect that the services of the petitioner shall not be disturbed unless alternative post is available to accommodate the petitioner in the parent department. When the SLP was taken up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was stated before the Hon’ble Court that the appellant has already been relieved from the DRDA, Chandel and in that event the case was disposed of as infructuous. However, subsequently when it was placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the aforesaid statement relating to relieving of the appellant had been made under wrong impression, the earlier order, by which case had been disposed of as infructuous, was recalled. 7. When the matter was taken up, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to know about the order dated 10.9.2013 whereby the order of absorption had been reversed and writ petitioner-appellant was allowed to continue on deputation till he is repatriated to parent Department by either creating supernumerary post or upon vacancy being available. On taking notice of the said fact the Hon’ble Supreme Court did observe that the writ petitioner-appellant continued to hold the post for about twelve years whereas in terms of the fundamental rule, the deputationist cannot hold the post for more than five years in any event and, therefore, the Court asked the State Government to furnish information as to whether the Government has taken any step for creation of post. Thereupon, the authority passed an order on 23.1.2016 whereby writ petitioner-appellant was repatriated to his parent department, DRDA. That order was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.59 of 2016. Upon the matter being taken up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court when the said order dated 23.1.2016 was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did observe in its order that nothing survives in the SLP for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Upon the matter being taken up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court when the said order dated 23.1.2016 was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did observe in its order that nothing survives in the SLP for consideration and the same stands disposed of. However, it was recorded that it would be open for the respondent No.4 to work out his remedy in future in the manner known to law. Though such liberty was granted but the petitioner-appellant had already filed writ application before this Court vide WP(C) No.59 of 2016. 8. Thus it appears that order dated 10.9.2013 whereby absorption of the petitioner had been cancelled and was considered to be deputationist only was under challenge in WP(C) No.903 of 2013, whereas, order dated 23.1.2016 whereby the writ petitioner was repatriated to the parent department was under challenge in WP(C) No.59 of 2016. 9. In such event, both the writ applications were heard together by the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide its order dated 16.6.2016 dismissed both the writ applications by holding that the order passed by the authority cancelling the absorption to the post of Executive Engineer in DRDA never happens to be illegal and thereby writ petitioner-appellant is liable to be repatriated to his former post in the parent department. Being aggrieved with that order these two writ appeals have been filed. 10. Mr. Tamphamani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in course of his argument took all those pleas which had been taken before the learned single Judge, which on being dealt with by the learned single Judge, factually and legally, were found to be untenable. Therefore, it need not be reiterated extensively, rather in brief. Learned counsel, while assailing the order relating to cancellation of absorption, submitted that when the services of the writ petitioner-appellant had been absorbed in the borrowing department, a right got accrued to him which cannot be taken away without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard as that would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In the instant case before the order of cancellation of the absorption was passed no opportunity was given to the petitioner to be heard in the matter and thereby the order suffers from illegality. In the instant case before the order of cancellation of the absorption was passed no opportunity was given to the petitioner to be heard in the matter and thereby the order suffers from illegality. That apart, submission, which was advanced is that the Government has taken a stand that the services of the petitioner have been absorbed without there being any approval of the Government. But the fact is that before the services of the petitioner were absorbed the Minister, in the concerned file, had passed the necessary order in this regard. But the said file, in spite of being called for by the Court, was not produced and thereby presumption can be drawn against the Government. It was also submitted that once the services of the petitioner had been absorbed in the borrowing department it would not be permissible to repatriate the said person to parent department. In support of his submission, learned counsel referred to a decision rendered in the case of Umapati Choudhury Vs State of Bihar: (1999) 4 SCC 659 and also an order passed by the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.491 of 2009. Further submission is that only the petitioner-appellant has been repatriated leaving such similarly situated persons in borrowing Department and thereby it is discriminatory in terms of provisions as contained in Article 14 and 16. 11. As against this, Mr.B.P.Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondent as well as learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there has been absolutely no illegality in the order relating to cancellation of the absorption and repatriation to the parent department as the appellant had wrongly been absorbed as Executive Engineer in DRDA as he in the parent department was holding the post of Assistant Engineer and without having completion of nine years of service, as is required under the Rule applicable in the parent department, was absorbed within a period of much much less than nine years and that too without consent of parent department and thereby the authority has rightly cancelled the order of absorption. And that the appellant had been deputed to the borrowing department only for four years but he remained there for twelve years, notice of which has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and upon noticing this the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in one of its order, when the respondent had approached the Supreme Court, that under fundamental rule, one can be placed on deputation for five years. Whereas the appellant was allowed to continue till twelve long years and in such situation, the court asked the Government to place before the Court as to why the supernumerary post is being not created. However, upon vacancy being available, petitioner was repatriated to his parent department and thereby the order of repatriation never suffers from any illegality. 12 Coming first to the point of deputation, it be stated that when the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the LDA, he was deputed as Executive Engineer, a higher post in DRDA and after more than a year his services were absorbed in the department. Thus, the question does arise as to whether it was legal or not. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to allow the service of his employee and corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves consent of the employees. In that event if the borrowing department intends to go for permanent absorption of the deputationist the borrowing department is duty bound to have consent of that of the parent department. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Umapati Choudhury Vs State of Bihar (supra) wherein in para 8, it has been held as hereunder: “8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or order of even an organisation (commonly referred to as the parent department or leading authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employees to go on deputation or not. ....” The learned single Judge has also placed reliance on it and after examining it has been pleased to record that there has been nothing on record to establish that the parent department had ever given its consent for absorption of the deputationist in the borrowing department. Before us also, nothing contrary was produced. Further, we do find that as per the relevant rules, applicable in the parent department, the Assistant Engineer would be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer only on completion of nine years of the satisfactory service. But much, much before it the petitioner-appellant has been absorbed in the borrowing department, that too without there being any such rule, though certain guidelines are there, notice of which has also been taken by the learned single Judge, but it does not appear to be applicable in case of the petitioner. The said guidelines are as follows: “IV-Personnel Policy of the DRDAs 4.1. Currently, there is no uniform policy for engaging and/or recruiting the staff by the DRDA. In many States, there are staff both directly recruited as well as on deputation. It is essential that prudent personnel policies are followed if the DRDA are to be a professional agency or are to perform the tasks expected of them. The following principles are laid down which must necessarily be followed. 4.2. As a matter of policy, the DRDA should not have any permanent staff. Taking employees on deputation to the DRDA for specific periods has the advantage of better choice of staff, flexibility in staffing pattern and of motivating the staff. The objective or strengthening of DRDAs is to provide them with certain professional capacity and have a flexible-staffing pattern. To start with, DRDAs shall no longer to be allowed to make any direct recruitment. The objective or strengthening of DRDAs is to provide them with certain professional capacity and have a flexible-staffing pattern. To start with, DRDAs shall no longer to be allowed to make any direct recruitment. In respect of the staff that is currently borne on the DRDA, the State Rural Development Department should immediately draws up a 3-5 year plan for absorption of the staff into the line departments.” On perusal of the said guidelines, we do find that the learned single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that it speaks about absorption of deputationist who were working there from before when the guideline was framed on 1.4.1999. In this regard it if further noted that no such permanent post has ever been created of Executive Engineer in the borrowing department. In such event, any order with respect to absorption of the deputationist would be quite illegal. Further, we do find that it has been the stand of the State that the borrowing department took the decision for absorption of the petitioner-appellant as Executive Engineer in the DRDA, Chandel without there being any approval of the competent authority/State Government, though it is the stand of the appellant that such decision was there in the file which got missing. Even if such decision would have been there in the file as is being claimed, it does not create any right on the appellant in absence of the said order being communicated. On the contrary, file placed by the Government before the learned single Judge never indicates anything regarding any consultation between the borrowing department and parent department with respect to absorption of the petitioner in the borrowing department and, therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly accepted the contention made on behalf of the State that decision taken by the borrowing department for absorption of the petitioner-appellant was without having approval of the competent authority/State Government. 13. Proceeding ahead with the matter, it be stated that stand also has been taken on behalf of the appellant that once the deputationist is absorbed in the borrowing department then his service is not liable to be repatriated with the parent department. It is true, such proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, followed by the Gauhati High Court. But here, the case is entirely different as upon the decision of absorption being found to be illegal, it has been cancelled. It is true, such proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, followed by the Gauhati High Court. But here, the case is entirely different as upon the decision of absorption being found to be illegal, it has been cancelled. In such situation, if the decision is there for repatriating the petitioner-appellant to the parent department, it cannot be said to be illegal. Further submission which has been advanced is that the order cancelling the absorption has been passed without giving any opportunity of the petitioner to be heard in the matter and thereby that order has been passed in derogation of the principle of natural justice. We do not find any substance in this submission also as it has been noted earlier by us and also by the learned single Judge that after the order of cancellation of absorption was passed, the appellant challenged it before the Gauhati High Court but that application, subsequently was withdrawn and then petitioner-appellant submitted representation, upon which the authority on giving due consideration to the case of the petitioner, rejected the representation vide its order dated 10.9.2013 which is impugned. And in that event the learned single Judge has been pleased to hold upon placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case of S.L.Kapoor Vs Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379 and also a decision rendered in the case of Menaka Gandhi Vs Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 , that absence of pre-decisional hearing may not always be fatal though pre-decisional hearing is always a more effective antidote to arbitrariness, unfairness. Further, it has been held by the learned single Judge that decision relating to absorption is so patently illegal for the reason assigned above that even if opportunity would have been given to the petitioner he could not have succeeded in defending it. 14. Now coming to the other aspect relating to repatriation, we do find that deputation was made for four years but the petitioner-appellant has remained in the borrowing department for twelve years and on account of that the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed its surprise while passing one of the orders as referred to above as to how the petitioner has been allowed to remain in the department when under the fundamental rule, maximum period of deputation can be five years. Thus, regard being had to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order of repatriation. 15. Accordingly, we do find that the learned single Judge was absolutely justified in holding that the absorption of the petitioner in the parent department was quite illegal and thereby there has been no illegality in the order relating to cancellation of absorption and repatriation to the parent department. Thus, we do not find any merit and hence, these appeals stand dismissed.