JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following prayers:- "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 30.3.2002 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be restrained from filling the post of the petitioner and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue on the said post. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 30.3.2002 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be absorbed and allowed to continue on the said post. (iii) Alternatively by an appropriate writ, order or direction, Rule 7 as well as Schedule-II referred in Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service of Project Directors, Project Officers and Officers in the Women Development Project) Rules, 1984 may kindly be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution under Article 14, 16, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India. (iv) In case any prejudicial action is taken or order is passed then the same may kindly be quashed and set aside with an appropriate order. (v) Any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. " 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the threshold submitted that he is not pressing the prayer no.3 and therefore, the same prayer is dismissed as not pressed. The adjudication of prayers no.1 & 2 is accordingly made. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Child Development Project officer (for short, 'CDPO') vide order dated 17/11/1988 and thereafter he continued to discharge his duties accordingly. On 01/02/1994 an advertisement was published for the post of Project Director in the pay-scale of 3700-5000 inviting applications from officers of the State Government. The petitioner made an application and was duly selected as per the recommendations of the Selection Committee in accordance with Rule 10, Rule 13 and Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service of Project Directors, Project Officers and Officers in the Women Development Project) Rules, 1984 (for short, 'Rules of 1984'). In the advertisement, the condition nos. In the advertisement, the condition nos. 2 & 3 made it clear that this was an appointment on deputation after adopting due selection process. The appointment order dated 20/03/1995 also mentioned that the appointment was on deputation basis. It is also mentioned that the same appointment order carried the mention of one Smt. Chitra Rathore at serial no.2.. The petitioner continued to serve the respondents until 03/03/2002 on the post of Project Director and then as per order dated 30/03/2002, the petitioner stood repatriated to the post of CDPO as her term had come to an end. The petitioner challenged this order of repatriation from the post of Project Officer to CDPO bringing an end to her deputation vide order dated 30/03/2002. The petitioner also produced an order dated 01/04/2002 whereby other similarly situated candidates were continued on deputation on the post of Project Director and this order of extension included name of Smt. Chitra Rathore. 4. The respondents filed a reply and submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to be continued on deputation as there is no right to deputation. It was also submitted by the respondents that the fixed tenure of the petitioner had come to an end and therefore, she was being relieved and sent back to her original post of CDPO in accordance with law. It was also submitted by the respondents that Smt. Chitra Rathore is a member of a Non-Government Organization, Rupayan and was selected for the post of Project Director, District Women Development Agency on contract basis under the Rules of 1984 for a fixed term and her term has not yet been expired. It was further stated that the State Government had taken a policy decision on 11/04/2000 to abolish the post of Project Director and therefore, the persons discharging duties on such posts were no longer required. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sh. Ashvini Jaiman made his arguments on four counts; firstly, that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before her repatriation was made by passing order dated 30/03/2002; secondly, it is gross violation of Article 14 as other persons like Smt. Chitra Goyal etc. were allowed to continue on the post of Project Director whereas the petitioner was repatriated back on the post of CDPO; thirdly, the deputation was by way of appointment through proper selection process and not deputation by transfer. were allowed to continue on the post of Project Director whereas the petitioner was repatriated back on the post of CDPO; thirdly, the deputation was by way of appointment through proper selection process and not deputation by transfer. He emphatically argued that there was a difference between deputation upon transfer which are made against the equivalent posts from one cadre to another, one department to another, one organization to another or one Government to another and in such case, a deputationist has no lawful right to continue on deputation whereas in this case, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was given deputation on the basis of appointment after adopting due selection process in pursuance of an advertisement and fourthly, the order is stigmatic as it caused an impression that the petitioner was not competent to continue on the post of Project Director whereas the other similarly situated candidates were still continuing on the same post. The petitioner's counsel relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India and another, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 757 , the relevant para nos. 13 & 14 of which are as follows:- "13. Ordinarily transfers on deputations are made as against equivalent post from one cadre to another, one department to another, one organisation to another, or one Government to another, in such case a deputationist has no legal right in the list. Such deputationist has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. In such case, deputation does not result into recruitment, as no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as the person continues to be a member of the present service. 14. However, as aforesaid principle cannot be made applicable in the matter of appointment (recruitment) on deputation. In such case, for appointment on deputation in the services of the State or Organization or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the provisions of Article 14 and Article 16 are to be followed. No person can be discriminated nor is it open to the appointing authority to act arbitrarily or to pass any order in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No person can be discriminated nor is it open to the appointing authority to act arbitrarily or to pass any order in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person who applies for appointment on deputation has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally and once such person is selected and offered with the letter of appointment on deputation, the same cannot be cancelled except on the ground of non-suitability or unsatisfactory work." 6. Learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Krishnaveer Singh along with Sh. Praneet Sharma and Sh. Anirudh Mathur contested the case by stating that there was no right to deputation and in the given circumstances, non-extension of deputation does not create any prejudice against the petitioner. It was also argued that it is not a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution because the persons holding the post of Project Director were being phased out in the light of the policy decision of the State Government by abolishing the post of Project Director. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondents that performance of the petitioner was not unblemished and therefore, his services on deputation were not extended. 7. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1984, which deals with tenure for the posts of Project Directors, Project Officers and Prachetas, provides as follows:- "7. Tenure.- (i) The posts of Project Directors, Project Officers and prachetas shall be held by an officer for a tenure ordinarily not exceeding three years which may be extended by the Appointing Authority for further terms not exceeding three years at a time. (ii) All appointment of Project Directors, Project Officers and Prachetas shall in the first instance be on temporary transfer or deputation from the parent department/service or institution or on contract as the case may be, for a period of one year which may be extended till the period indicated by the Appointing Authority, from time to time subject to the condition that such extension shall not be beyond the date of her retirement according to the condition of service of her parent department service or institution. The officer so appointed shall have right of reversion or lien in their respective parent department, service or cadres or other bodies from which service they are drawn under rule S but on such reversion they shall be governed by the conditions of service of the department service or Institution but so far as Services under the Government of Rajasthan are concerned, service rendered under these Rules shall count for all purposes except that they shall not have any right to protection or pay or scale or status held by them as Project Director/Project Officer or Pracheta, unless otherwise provided in these Rules : Provided that a Project Director, Project Officer or Pracheta may on her violation, resign or seek retirement according to the conditions of service of her parent department service or institution will neither confer her any right than these ordinarily admissible under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951." 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in the light of the law laid down by the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India and another (supra), there is a difference between transfer on deputation and appointment on deputation. On one hand, the transfer on deputation is made as against equivalent post and a deputationist has no right to continue on the post. On the other hand, deputation by appointment is a different category altogether and strict parameters of Articles 14 & 16 are to be followed. It is also made clear that the respondents-authorities cannot discriminate or act arbitrarily in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India against a person on deputation through appointment. It is important that in this case, the petitioner ought to have been treated fairly and equally and once he was selected and offered a letter of appointment on deputation, the same could not have been cancelled except on the ground of non-suitability or unsatisfactory work. This is a fit case where such law laid down by the Apex Court could be applied as there is a clear violation of Article 14 whereby Smt. Chitra Rathore has been continued and the petitioner's extension has been denied. This is a fit case where such law laid down by the Apex Court could be applied as there is a clear violation of Article 14 whereby Smt. Chitra Rathore has been continued and the petitioner's extension has been denied. The order impugned, by which reversion of the petitioner has been made from the post of Project Director to the post of CDPO, is a non-speaking order and does not furnish reasons for cancellation of the deputation leave aside any mention of non-suitability or unsatisfactory work or abolition of the posts. 9. In the light of aforementioned discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30/03/2002 is quashed & set aside. Since the petitioner, as informed, has attained the age of superannuation, therefore, the respondents are directed to give him all consequential benefits within a period of three months from today.