ORDER : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.12.2016 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant Dr. Megehndra Sharma against the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal and also the order issued by the respondent dated 13.7.2016, repatriating the appellant to his parent department with the further prayer that the respondents be directed to allow him on the post of Project Officer in Science and Technology Department as per the terms of the original appointment. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant Shri Ashwini Jaiman is that appellant was initially appointed as Teacher Gr.III on 29.11.1999. The State Government has established a department known as Department of Science and Technology. The Government has by amendment notification dated 2.4.1993 promulgated Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service of Project Directors, Project Officers and Research Officers in the Department of Science and Technology Amendment Rules, 1993 (for short-the Rules of 1993) by amending the Rules of 1986 thereof. The respondent-department invited application from eligible persons for appointment on the aforementioned post on deputation. Petitioner applied for the same and was selected in view of his qualifications on the post of Research Officer at State Remote Sensing Application Centre, Jodhpur vide appointment order dated 8.6.2011 initially under Rule 14 on adhoc basis for one year or till the regularly selected candidates are available, whichever is earlier. Petitioner joined his duties as Research Officer on 8.6.2011. He was placed in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100, grade pay of Rs.5400. His deputation was extended for one year vide order dated 15.5.2013. He continued to work in that post till 2015 as the respondents opted to allow him to continue to work on that post due to non-availability of eligible candidates. It was thereafter that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 10.6.2015 whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment on deputation on the post of Project Director, Research Officer & Project Officer. Petitioner also applied for the post of Research Officer as well as Project Officer on deputation. However, he was selected for appointment on the post of Project Officer vide order dated 28.7.2015. Upon being selected and appointed, petitioner joined his duties as Project Officer in the running pay band of Rs.15600-39100 of grade pay Rs.6000 on 29.7.2015. Petitioner also applied for the post of Research Officer as well as Project Officer on deputation. However, he was selected for appointment on the post of Project Officer vide order dated 28.7.2015. Upon being selected and appointed, petitioner joined his duties as Project Officer in the running pay band of Rs.15600-39100 of grade pay Rs.6000 on 29.7.2015. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in counting the initial period of appointment of the petitioner on adhoc temporary basis on the post of Research Officer from 8.6.2011 till his fresh appointment by way of selection on recommendation of selection Committee by order dated 28.7.2015 to hold that petitioner has completed more than six years. 3. Shri Ashwini Jaiman Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to condition no.3 of the advertisement dated 10.6.2015, according to which the term of the appointment would only be three years though initially the appointment shall be for a period of one year but in the discretion of the Government, the appointment could be terminated at any time. The understanding was that the petitioner would be allowed to continue for the full duration of the appointment on deputation for a period of three years. The Director, Information and Technology, Department however, illegally by order dated 13.7.2016 relieved the petitioner for joining his parent department. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge have taken a wrong interpretation of Rule 7(i) of the Rules of 1993 by holding that the post of Project Officer shall be held by an officer for a tenure not exceeding three years, which may be extended by appointing authority for further term not exceeding three years at a time. The learned Single Judge has seriously erred in holding that maximum period of deputation, therefore, could be six years; initial period being three years and therefore the limit of period of extension being three more years. Language of Rule 7(i) is quite clear that the deputation may be extended by the appointing authority for further term not exceeding three years at a time. This according to learned counsel means that the order of extension at a time can be for a maximum period of three years, although, it could be for lesser period also may be for one or two years. This according to learned counsel means that the order of extension at a time can be for a maximum period of three years, although, it could be for lesser period also may be for one or two years. However, this rule cannot be interpreted to mean that once the period of three years expires, further order of extension cannot be issued. In other words, what the learned counsel wants to convey is that even when the deputationist has completed six years, further extension can still be granted to him any number of times, subject to condition that at a time, such extension shall not exceed three years. 4. Learned counsel has referred to the additional affidavit filed in the appeal by the appellant to show that the respondent-department in their working have themselves not interpreted Rule 7(i) in the way, it has been interpreted by learned Single Judge inasmuch they have continued the several persons on deputation posting for as long as 20 years. Instances of Manish Jain who continued for 20 years, Shailesh Chandra Jain who continued for 19 years, Yogesh Kumar Bairwa, Rajendra Singh Jain, Arvind Sharma, Rajeev Acharya & Niro Sharma, who continued for 16 years, Rajeev Jain, who continued for 13 years, Amita Gill, who continued for 12 years and Naresh Bhatia, O.P. Arora, Dilip Singh Sankhla, T.S. Sharma & Rajesh Kumar Jain, who continued for 10 years have been given. 5. Shri Ashish Jain, learned Additional Government Counsel could not dispute the fact that certain persons have continued with the respondent on being selected for appointment on deputation for a period of longer than ten years. He is therefore, not in a position to dispute that the respondent themselves have not interpreted Rule 7(i) and 7(ii) in the way, it has been done by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. He further submits that the selection of the petitioner was made only for one year and that too at the instance of the then State Minister of the department. He has in this connection referred to the note sheet sent by the State Minister, Science and Technology Department dated 1.10.2010 to the Principal Secretary, Science and Technology Department and the letter dated 1.10.2010 sent by the Private Secretary to the Project Director, Science and Technology Department, Jaipur asking for appointment of the petitioner on deputation. He has in this connection referred to the note sheet sent by the State Minister, Science and Technology Department dated 1.10.2010 to the Principal Secretary, Science and Technology Department and the letter dated 1.10.2010 sent by the Private Secretary to the Project Director, Science and Technology Department, Jaipur asking for appointment of the petitioner on deputation. Learned Additional Government Counsel has submitted that obviously selection of the petitioner as Project Officer was made at the instance of the then State Minister even though petitioner was not eligible. Reference is made to the reply to the appeal filed before the Tribunal wherein it has been stated that the post of Project Officer in the respondent-department carry pay band of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.6000. The procedure for selection has been given in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1986/1999 according to which only such persons shall be eligible for consideration for the various posts who fulfill the conditions laid down in Schedule-I on the 1st April of the year in which they are considered. Only, therefore, such government employee, who were holding a post of State Service in their parent department are eligible for appointment on the post of Project Officer, whereas petitioner was working as Teacher Gr.III in his parent department in pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200. He was thus not eligible. Learned Additional Government Counsel further argued that there was no relaxation granted for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Project Officer as per proviso to Rule 9. He was therefore on completion of one year, rightly relieved. 6. Shri Ashish Jain, learned Additonal Government Counsel has has referred to the Circular of the Finance Department dated 17.2.2007 according to which the maximum term of deputation would be four years and it could be extended with the permission of the Finance Department by one year more i.e. the total period of deputation would be five years. In this case, no permission has been given by the Finance Department and, therefore, such deputation was rightly terminated because the petitioner had rightly completed more than five years. 7. In this case, no permission has been given by the Finance Department and, therefore, such deputation was rightly terminated because the petitioner had rightly completed more than five years. 7. Shri Ashwini Jaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that neither Service Tribunal, nor learned Single Judge has dismissed the case of the petitioner on the premise that petitioner’s pay was not fixed in terms of column-4 of the Schedule-I appended to the Rules of 1993 and, therefore, he was not eligible. Even otherwise, proviso to Rule 9 relied by the respondents contemplates that the Selection Committee shall have powers to relax the requirements of age limit, if any, minimum pay and experience fixed, for eligibility in the schedule in the case of specially deserving with significant experience and flair for Science and/or Technology and petitioner being a research scholar, the Selection Committee, therefore, rightly relaxed the requirement of minimum pay in his case. Once the petitioner was selected afresh on recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment on the post of Project Officer and was accordingly appointed by order dated 28.7.2015, even if initial period of appointment was mentioned as one year, he should have been allowed to continue for a minimum period of three years because that was the term of the appointment advertised by the respondent. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Cherukuri Mani vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors-AIR 2014 SCC 2090 and division bench judgment of this Court in Dr. I.K. Mannsoori vs. UOI & Ors.-(2016) 2 WLC (Raj.) 469. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal indicates that though it has examined in detail, outer limit for which a substantive government servant can be allowed to continue on deputation in the services of the borrowing department, but the Tribunal has indeed not examined the reasons given by the respondent in their reply to the appeal that the petitioner was not eligible to be selected on deputation. The Tribunal has, however, relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in UOI & Anr. vs. V.Ramakrishnan & Anr.-2005 SCC page 1150 wherein it has been held that ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. The Tribunal has, however, relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in UOI & Anr. vs. V.Ramakrishnan & Anr.-2005 SCC page 1150 wherein it has been held that ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. 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. The Tribunal has held that since the deputation of the petitioner was made only for a period of one year, he has rightly been repatriated to his parent department. In this connection, the Tribunal has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. S.N. Maiti wherein it was held that a deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. The Tribunal has referred to the Circular of the Finance Department dated 17.2.2007 according to which the maximum term of deputation would be four years and it could be extended with the permission of the Finance Department by one year more i.e. the total period of deputation would thus be five years. The Tribunal has also taken note of the argument that no permission has been given by the Finance Department and, therefore, such deputation was rightly terminated because the petitioner had already completed more than five years. 10. Although, it is true that as per Rule 7(i) of the Rules of 1993 that an officer can hold a post of Project Directors, Project Officers and Research Officers for a tenure ordinarily not exceeding three years, which implies that despite internal turn of appointment by deputation being for tenure of one year, such tenure may extend upto the period of three years. Then Rule 7(i) further provides that such tenure may be extended by the Appointing Authority for further terms not exceeding three years at a time. Then Rule 7(i) further provides that such tenure may be extended by the Appointing Authority for further terms not exceeding three years at a time. The Rule obviously is not happily worded, but regardless of the language used in the framing of the Rules by the rule making authority, the liberal interpretation of Rule 7(i) would be that after initial tenure of three years, it may be extended by appointing authority for further term, but not exceeding three years at a time. Even then if we go by the relevant Rules, we have to also consider the other Rules of the Rules of 1993 including Rule 8 relating to source of selection, Rule 9 relating to eligibility for selection and Rule 12 relating to procedure for selection and Rule 14 relating to urgent temporary appointments. To begin with Rule 14, it would be noted that in the scheme of Rules of 1993. Rule 14 provides that pending regular selection of Project Directors, Project Officers and Research Officers and other Officers in accordance with Rule 12, the Appointing Authority may appoint a person eligible under these rules purely on a temporary basis for a period not exceeding one year. In the present case, this Rule was invoked in favour of the petitioner for appointing him on urgent temporary basis initially by order dated 8.6.2011 and thereafter it was extended by subsequent order dated 15.5.2013 and thereafter again by further orders, some of which have not been placed on record. But it is not in dispute that he continued to serve on urgent temporary basis with the respondents on the post of Research Officer till he was selected afresh for appointment on deputation on the post of Project Officer by order dated 28.7.2015. This order, which is on record states that the appointment of the petitioner was made for a period of one year on the post of Project Officer in the running pay band of Rs.15600-39100 PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.6000 as per the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2003 with the stipulation that tenure of such appointment would be initially for one year and that the petitioner shall continue to retain his lien in the parent department. The use of the word `initially; thus would indicate that the borrowing department in its discretion could extend it period further. 11. The use of the word `initially; thus would indicate that the borrowing department in its discretion could extend it period further. 11. The respondents have set up a specific plea that the petitioner was not eligible for being selected and that his selection was made at the instance of the then Minister of State with independent charge despite his ineligibility. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1993 provides that only such persons shall be eligible for consideration for the various posts, who fulfill the conditions laid down in Schedule-I on the 1st April of the year in which they are considered. The post of Project Officer is included in Schedule-I, column no. 4 thereof contains the condition of scale of pay or basic pay eligibility and provides all State Service Officers drawing minimum pay of Rs.15070 in the Running Pay Band PB-2 9300- 34800 plus Grade Pay of Rs.4200 = Rs.19270 or above, as prescribed under Rajasthan Civil Services (RP) Rules, 2008, shall be eligible. It is in this connection that the respondents have relied on the circular of the Finance Department dated 17.2.2007, which was placed at Annexure-R/4 with their reply before the Tribunal in the appeal filed by another appellant Shailesh Chandra Jain, which obviously cannot be applied to the present case because that circular covered cases of the employees, working in the public sector undertakings and statutory boards etc. and were taken on deputation in the government department. The petitioner is already a State Government employee, whose parent department is Education Department, where in he has substantively appointed as Teacher Gr.III. 12. For deputation of a government servant from one department to another, by retaining the lien in the parent/lending department, Rule 144A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 would govern the case, which inter alia provides that the terms and conditions of the State Government servants transferred on deputation/foreign service to Central Government, other State Government Public undertakings, autonomous bodies (whether incorporated or not) and other bodies wholly or substantially controlled by the Government etc. shall be regulated in accordance with the orders issued by the Government from time to time. The Finance Department has there under issued a circular in this regard on 17.2.2007, which inter alia provides that initial tenure of deputation would be only one year, which would be in the public interest extended by administrative department upto three years in exceptional cases. The Finance Department has there under issued a circular in this regard on 17.2.2007, which inter alia provides that initial tenure of deputation would be only one year, which would be in the public interest extended by administrative department upto three years in exceptional cases. This tenure can be extended further with the permission of the Department of Personnel and Finance Department on proposal of the administrative department at least two months before the expiry of the period of deputation. The Circular further provides that deputation in no circumstances can be extended beyond five years. It is surprising that the Department of Science and Technology has been having government servant for other department by way of appointment on deputation on the post of Project Directors, Project Officers and Research Officers for as long as 20 years. In the present case, another decision of the Government referred to below Rule 144A dated 12.9.2008 provides that the term `deputation’ will cover only appointments made by transfer on a temporary basis. It does not cover permanent appointments made by transfer or final absorption or by direct recruitment in competition with open market candidates to the aforesaid bodies. The `basic pay’ for this purpose shall mean pay drawn in the scale of pay of the substantive appointments held or the pay in the scale of pay of the officiating appointment in an employee’s parent cadre provided that it is certified by the appointing authority that but for the deputation, the employee would have continued to hold officiating appointment indefinitely. 13. In the light of these binding decisions of the Finance Department in respect of appointment of substantive employees of the State Government on deputation with the borrowing department while retaining their lien in the lending department, the whole working of the Department of Science and Technology stands exposed to the breach of the relevant decision of the Finance Department of the Government where the outer limit of such deputation would be indicated to be five years. It is not healthy practice in any government department to allow the employees to work with them on deputation, even if the appointment on such deputation is on recommendation of the Selection Committee like in the Rules of 1993 for period as long as 20 years as the uncertainty always looms large over such employees and they may be at any time repatriated back to the parent department. Besides, if his lien retained in parent department for such a long time, the issues with regard to recruitment on the post vacant for such lien and seniority and promotion in the parent department would remain uncertain for such an indefinite period. 14. While, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Tribunal, albeit for reasons other than those mentioned in their orders, but we are also not inclined to direct restoration of the deputation of the petitioner with the respondent-department as that in our view would amount to restoring of a wrong order for it has not been shown that in this case a special relaxation was granted to the petitioner, on recommendation or selection committee. We find that the appointment of the petitioner was based on the recommendation of the Minister of the State with independent authority. We, however, direct the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan to have the method of recruitment and appointment in the Department of Science and Technology reviewed in consultation with the Finance Department and the Department of Personnel, if need be by necessary amendments in the Rules so as to provide certainty to the working of the officers in that Department, rather then having them on deputation for decades altogether. 15. With that aforesaid directions, the special appeal is dismissed.