JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against advertisement issued by the Rajasthan School Education Council (the RSEC), which was uploaded on 18.02.2019 on its website for the purpose of preparing penal for taking employees on deputation for various positions. 2. On behalf of the petitioners, who all claim to have been appointed on deputation by orders dated 05.10.2018, submissions have been made that the action of the respondents in issuing the advertisement, when their period of deputation is still not over, is bad. 3. Learned counsel for the RSEC submits that the identical issues were raised by similarly situated petitioners in Lokesh Gupta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 4173/2019 and connected matters, which petitions have been decided on 05.03.2019 at Jaipur Bench, wherein, the petitions have been dismissed and, therefore, the present writ petitions also deserve to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners are not in a position to dispute that the issues as raised in the present writ petitions are similar to the issues raised in the case of Lokesh Gupta (supra). 5. In the case of Lokesh Gupta (supra), it was, inter alia, laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as under:- "The appointment by deputation of the petitioners as Additional Chief Block Education Officers in different blocks of District Bharatpur vide order dated 5.10.2018 under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) apparently was non- compliant with the business rules framed on 8.8.2016 under Article 166 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as neither the approval of the Secretary of the Administrating Department i.e. Department of Education nor of the concerned Minister as mandated, was taken. Besides it has also transpired that the petitioners were appointed by deputation vide order dated 5.10.2018 in haste following the purported walk-in-interview held on 3/4/5.10.2018 immediately prior to the code of conduct for elections to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly being notified on 6.10.2018. It is also admitted that illegality aforesaid being noticed, following the advertisement dated 18.2.2019 for making appointments by deputation afresh to the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan the petitioners participated in the interviews held between 22.2.2019 to 24.2.2019 albeit they filed this petition on 21.2.2019. It is also admitted that illegality aforesaid being noticed, following the advertisement dated 18.2.2019 for making appointments by deputation afresh to the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan the petitioners participated in the interviews held between 22.2.2019 to 24.2.2019 albeit they filed this petition on 21.2.2019. Reliance placed by counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India & Another Civil Appeal No. 5225/2012 decided on 16.7.2012 is of little avail in the facts of the case. Indeed in the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has neatly differentiated between appointment by way of deputation and transfer on deputation, and held that where deputation was by way of appointment it had to abide by its terms including as to the tenure. But the case at hand turns on the illegality in the appointments by deputation. Such illegality cannot be saved by the law enunciated in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India & Another (supra). Reliance placed by counsel for the petitioners on Rule 144-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, on the Government note, which provides for one year deputations extendable upto three years, to submit that the petitioners appointed by way of deputation for one year vide order dated 5.10.2018 cannot be revoked, is again of little avail. This also for the reason recorded above that the petitioners appointment by way of deputation on the post of Additional Chief Block Education Officers with the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan was wholly illegal as it was in plain contravention of the mandate of business rules notified on 6.10.2018 under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the issue is as to whether the petitioners appointment by way of deputation vide order dated 5.10.2018 were legal and valid. As recorded above, they were not in view of the fact that the necessary mandatory compliances for deputation of State Officers, as the petitioners admittedly are as Principals of Secondary Schools, under the business rules notified on 6.10.2018 in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India were not adhered to while passing the order dated 5.10.2018. These appointments by deputation were thus vitiated. These appointments by deputation were thus vitiated. There can be no legal recourse against the correction of such illegality as has sought to be done by the respondents in advertising afresh for appointments by deputation on the post of Additional Chief Block Education Officers. There is thus no force in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed." 6. It may be noticed that in two places in the order (supra) the date of business rules notified has been indicated as 06.10.2018 under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, which in fact should be 08.08.2016 as noticed in earlier part of the said order. 7. In view of the order in the case of Lokesh Gupta (supra), no case for interference in the present writ petitions is made out, the same are, therefore, dismissed.