JUDGMENT : 1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in the order dated 15.12.2017 as passed in Writ Petition No.56259 of 2017, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to exercise writ jurisdiction on the appellant’s challenge to an order of his repatriation to the parent department. 2. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellant, who was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Sewage Board, was deputed to work as Assistant Engineer with Mysuru Mahanagara Palike by an order dated 29.09.2014 until further orders. However, the Commissioner, Mysuru City Corporation, passed the order dated 03.10.2017 repatriating the appellant to his parent department. 3. It was sought to be contended before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the appellant that his deputation was “till further orders” and there was no order for repatriation from his parent department. It was also submitted that the vacancy continued to exist in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in Mysuru City Corporation. The learned Single Judge found the submissions not making out a case for interference and dismissed the writ petition, while observing, inter alia, as under : “6. A bare perusal of the deputation order dated 29.09.2014, clearly reveals that the deputation was “till further orders”. The deputation was not having a fixed tenure. Subsequently, a further order has been passed, namely, the order dated 03.10.2017, whereby, the tenure of deputation has come to an end. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot claim that the petitioner has a right to continue in the borrowing department. 7. Merely because vacancy may exist in the borrowing department, petitioner still has no right to continue, in a post to which he has no lien, in the borrowing department. It is for the borrowing department to decide whether to continue with the services of the petitioner or not.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to submit that the appellant has not been recalled by his parent department and hence, the impugned order of repatriation cannot be sustained. Learned counsel would also urge that the vacancy continue to exist in Mysuru City Corporation and there was no reason to repatriate the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to submit that the appellant has not been recalled by his parent department and hence, the impugned order of repatriation cannot be sustained. Learned counsel would also urge that the vacancy continue to exist in Mysuru City Corporation and there was no reason to repatriate the appellant. Learned counsel has also attempted to refer to the personal difficulties of the appellant and other notings said to have been made by the authorities. 5. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-appellant. The expression “till further orders” cannot be construed to mean that there has to be an order from the parent department of the petitioner-appellant before his repatriation. If the borrowing department, nearly three years after the deputation of the appellant, considers it proper to repatriate him to the parent department, the exercise cannot be fault at. Similarly, whether any vacancy exists in the borrowing department or not has hardly any bearing on the claim of the appellant because which particular post is to be manned in what manner is ultimately for the concerned department to examine and provide for in accordance with law. 6. We do not wish to make any comment on any other aspect of the matter sought to be suggested on behalf of the appellant. Suffice it to observe in this regard that it is always open for the appellant to make appropriate representation for consideration of the authorities concerned. 7. With the observations foregoing, the appeal stands dismissed. 8. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.