JUDGMENT Shukla, J. -- 1. The instant intra-Court appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth to Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.16259 of 2019 (Harivilash Gupta v. The State of M.P. and others], dated 28.7.2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writpetitioner/ appellant has been dismissed. 2. The writ-petitioner/appellant [hereinafter referred to as “the appellant] challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 16.8.2021, whereby services of the appellant have been repatriated to his parent department, i.e. School Education Department, on the post of Assistant Teacher. The order was challenged mainly on the ground that the appellant was sent on deputation by order dated 30.12.2019, and normal period of deputation is two years and that period is still not over. Therefore, by the impugned order he could not be repatriated, that too when the order of repatriation is stigmatic. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant assiduously urged that without conducting any enquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, his services have been directed to be repatriated by the respondents and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Upon perusal of the order, it is luminescent that the appellant was on deputation for more than ten years and there were several complaints filed against him. A show cause notice was also issued to the appellant on 28.6.2021 for submitting his stand, and thereafter the authority came to the conclusion that the stand taken by the appellant was not satisfactory and, therefore, he is required to be repatriated to his parent department. 5. From a perusal of the order of deputation, dated 30.12.2019, it is graphically clear that, earlier the deputation period of three years of the appellant was completed, but in a counselling conducted on 24.12.2019, he was again given an opportunity to continue on deputation as a Block Resources Co-ordinator (BRC) with a clear condition, that if it is found that the appellant is not able to perform the obligation assigned to him, he can be removed from deputation. 6. It is settled principle of law that deputation cannot be claimed by way of right. The order of deputation dated 30.12.2019 is also not specific in respect of term/period, for which the appellant was sent on deputation. 6. It is settled principle of law that deputation cannot be claimed by way of right. The order of deputation dated 30.12.2019 is also not specific in respect of term/period, for which the appellant was sent on deputation. On the contrary, the said order contains a clause, that the deputation can be put to an end at any time. 7. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of facts and law in proper perspective, held that the order of repatriation cannot be said to be a stigmatic order, because it does not adversely affect the service of the appellant and the said aspect is also not recorded in his service book. The order passed by the authority is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the deputation. Therefore, no illegality is found on the conduct of the authority while repatriating the appellant. 8. Since the appellant was on deputation and he has no legal right to continue on the deputed post and on administrative consideration, therefore, his services have been directed to be repatriated to his parent department. We do not perceive any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant. 9. Hence, no interference is called for in the present intraCourt appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of.