ORDER : The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s : “….to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not including the names of the petitioners in the seniority lists dated 26.03.2011 and 12.11.2020 of Senior Assistants as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Regulation 4 (d) and 16 (1) of A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Special Service Regulations, 2000 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and consequently direct the Respondents to place the names of the petitioners at appropriate place and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The present writ petition is filed in not considering the case of the petitioners for the post of Office Superintendent/Manager in A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad and not showing the petitioners in the revised provisional seniority list dated 12.11.2020. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on compassionate grounds. The 1st petitioner was appointed by an order dated 24.08.1994 vide proceedings in RC.No.72/C3/94 in the A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad (hereinafter called as “Parishad”) and his services were regularized by an order dated 06.07.1998 vide proceedings in RC No.984/E1A/98. In the similar manner, the 2nd petitioner was also appointed on compassionate grounds vide proceedings No.RC984/E1A/98, dated 06.07.1998 and his services were also regularized w.e.f. 04.05.1995. 4. The case of the petitioners is that both the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Assistants vide proceedings dated 24.08.1994 and 04.05.1994 respectively. And it is crystal clear that the appointment of both the petitioners is governed by the rules and regulations of Parishad and they originally belong to Parishad from the date of their appointment. 5. Later they were promoted and their probation was declared by the 4th respondent on 25.08.1996 and 03.05.1997 respectively and they are true members of the said Parishad. Though they were appointed and their probation was declared by the Parishad and not including the names of the petitioners for further promotion untenable and hyper technical objections is being questioned before this Court. 6. Though they were appointed and their probation was declared by the Parishad and not including the names of the petitioners for further promotion untenable and hyper technical objections is being questioned before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 1st and 2nd petitioners were appointed as Senior Assistants vide proceedings dated 10.10.2002 in RC No.67/C2/2002 by the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Kadapa and their services were regularized w.e.f. 15.10.2002 in the category of Senior Assistant and placed in probation for a period of one year vide proceedings in RC No.414/C3/2004 and their probation has been completed satisfactorily on 06.11.2003 and issued proceedings in RC No.993/C2/2005, dated 19.05.2005. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the petitioners belongs to the said Parishad, their names were not figured in the seniority list for the post of Office Superintendent/Manager and they have made representations to the respondent authorities separately by dated 06.04.2011, 19.11.2012, 20.10.2020 in the following manner. “I submit that the Government has formulated Special Service Regulations through G.O.Ms.No.48, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, dated 29.01.2000. Extract of Rule 14 is produced hereunder for favor of kind perusal ‘persons appointed in various categories on contract basis or direct recruitment after formation of the Commissionerate shall be absorbed duly regularizing their services w.e.f. date of their joining duty and their regular services can be taken into account for all the purposes including seniority, probation, pension and leave’.” 8. And in the said representation it was stated and pleaded that their services would have been appointed as Junior Assistant-cum- Typist after formation of the said Parishad. And declaration of probation was also passed by the then District Coordinator of Hospital Services, District Hospital, Chittoor and their services are continued in the said Parishad pursuant to the seniority list of Senor Assistant communicated vide RC No.1111/HR Cell/APVVP/ Ministerial/2011 dated 26.03.2011 by Commissioner, A.P.V.V.P., Hyderabad, has not included their names in the seniority list of Senior Assistant. Therefore, the petitioners prayed to consider their case and include their names in the final seniority list of Senior Assistants. 9. Therefore, the petitioners prayed to consider their case and include their names in the final seniority list of Senior Assistants. 9. The petitioners filed the present writ petition aggrieved by not passing any order on their representations, seeking direction to the respondents to treat them as the employees of the said Parishad and include their names in the Seniority List of Senior Assistant for further promotion of Office Superintendent/ Manager in the said Parishad. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that at the time of formation of the said Parishad, there is no clear demarcation of the employees between APVVP and other wings of the Health Departments i.e. Director of Health, Directorate of Medical Education and they are all comes under one umbrella. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents filed their counter affidavit and would contended that as per per G.O.Ms.No.48, HM&FW (C1) Department dated 29.01.2000 there was no clear demarcation between the Director of Health (preventive) side and APVVP (Curative) side. Employees of various cadres appointed in APVVP and DPH&FW institutions were used to be promoted through combined seniority lists by the promoting authorities of DPH&FW i.e., Regional Directors in respect of Zonal posts and Director of Health A.P., in respect of State cadre posts and were used to be posted to institutions of APVVP, DPH&FW & DME as per available vacancies till 2008. On reviewing the situation in 2008 to strengthen linkage at appropriate levels for attaining the objectives of the formation of APVVP, the Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted the Commissioner of the said Parishad to call for options from interested employees of all the wings i.e. APVVP, DPH&FW & DME including employees working on deputation in APVVP, during the year 2008 to build up its own cadre strength, through APVVP ordinance No.8 of 2008 (Amendment Act) amending the Act, and in G.O.Ms.No.316 HM&FW Department, dated 25.08.2008, to materialize the goals and objectives of formation of APVVP in health sector under curative aspect. 12. Accordingly, the said notification was published in newspapers giving wide publicity and also communicated to the RDM&H Services and DPH&FW, DME, and they in turn communicated to all the employees working under their control to opt their options. Interested employees have exercised their options for absorption in to APVVP during 2008. After examining eligibilities their services were absorbed into APVVP as per rules and they have been notified as APVVP employees. Interested employees have exercised their options for absorption in to APVVP during 2008. After examining eligibilities their services were absorbed into APVVP as per rules and they have been notified as APVVP employees. The petitioner have not opted to the APVVP for the notification issued dated 25.08.2008 inviting applications under Section 11 of the A.P.V.V.P. Act, 1986 as amended by the APVVP Amendment Ordinance, 2008, A.P. Ordinance No.8 of 2008. Hence, the petitioners were not considered as APVVP employees and now they have filed the present writ petition after completion of final absorption process in APVVP in the year 2008 vide proceedings in RC No.2145/E2/DCHS/CTR/2008, dated13.12.2008. Where, in the said proceedings, the names of the petitioners were not figured in the seniority list. 13. The further contention of the respondents is that petitioners were given promotion according to their eligibility at their respective institution from 2008 onwards separately without touching the APVVP employees in combined AP and residual AP, in which both the petitioners seniority has been continuously figured and authenticated under RDM&HS, Kadapa as well settled since long time and there has been no combined seniority list of APVVP & DH employees since 2008 onwards and since all the time the services and seniority of the petitioners have been continuously stand settled with the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, kadapa and their seniority has been finally unconditional at DPH&FW side by the Regional Director, M&HS under zone-4 continuously for the panel years from 2003-2004 to 2019-2020. The seniority list dated 18.11.2009 are evident that the names of both the petitioners are figured under S.Nos.114 and 121 respectively as DPH&FW employees in the final seniority list of Senior Assistant zone-4 for the panel year 2019-2020. It is the further contention of the respondents, that the petitioners have not made any representation from the date of promotion by the RDM&HS, Kadapa from 2002 to till date i.e. on 2020 i.e. particularly on 06.04.2011, 19.11.2012 even after lapse of 18 years to the AVVP deletion of their names from the seniority etc., at DPH&FW side and have protected their rights of services, seniority etc in the DPH&FW Department. 14. 14. Now, the respondents further contended that the petitioner rushed before this Court making fraudulent, baseless claims to go into APVVP with malafide intention to illegally grab the promotional benefits for which they are not at all eligible and making efforts to crucify the legitimate rights of APVVP employees whose seniority has been settled numerous times once for all the time and the petitioners have kept silent for 18 years and they have not opt for absorption into APVVP vide G.O.Ms.No.316, dated 25.08.2008. It is the further contention of the respondents that settled seniority cannot be reopened after a period of three years as per the Circular Memo No.57759/Ser.A/2004-1, dated 20.05.2004 of General Administration Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The respondents also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 2 SCC 523 the relevant portion is extracted hereunder; “the settled legal proposition that emerges that once the seniority has been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, it cannot be challenged and changed on any ground whatsoever in K.A. Abdul majeed v. State of Kerala and Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 294, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that seniority assigned to any employee could not be challenged after a lapse of seven years; though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed”. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that noticing the recent prospects of promotional avenues in APVVP are now rushing before this Court by making fraudulent, baseless claims to transgress themselves into APVVP with malafide intentions. 16. Now, the point for consideration is whether the petitioners can be treated as APVVP employees or not? 17. The Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Act, 1986 has been promulgated and came into force by an Act No. 29 of 1986. The Act provides for the constitution of Commissionerate for establishing, expanding and administering District, Erstwhile Taluk Hospitals and Dispensaries for providing better medical care in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 7 deals with the Powers of the Governing Council. Section 10 deals with the Funds of the Commissionerate. Section 11 deals with the vesting of dispensaries and hospitals with the Commissionerate. Section 7 deals with the Powers of the Governing Council. Section 10 deals with the Funds of the Commissionerate. Section 11 deals with the vesting of dispensaries and hospitals with the Commissionerate. Further sub clause (ii) of Provision for Section 11 says that the services rendered by any such officer or employee in the afore stated dispensaries, non teaching hospitals and the Directorate of Medical and Health Services and its subordinate offices prior to their absorption in the Commissionerate shall be deemed to be service under the Commissionerate constituted under this Act and he shall be entitled to count that service for the purpose of increments, leave, pension, provident fund and gratuity. Sub-clause (iii) to proviso of Section 11 such of those officers and employees who do not opt for absorption in the service of the Commissionerate may continue on deputation. 18. The Government has amended the APVVP Act by an amendment Act No.8 of 2008 and as per G.O.Ms.No.316, HM&FW Department, dated 25.08.2008 vide such amendment Section 11 has been amended by Act No.36 of 2008. By the amendment, the following proviso has been incorporated to Section 11 of the APVVP Act. i.e. “e” The Commissioner, may call for options from the employees who are working on deputation in APVVP from time to time and in subsequent dates from those employees who are working under the control of the Director of Health and the Director of Medical Education who are willing to work in the APVVP by their absorption of their services in the APVVP. Basing on the said amendment, the respondent authorities have issued notification No.316, dated 29.08.2008 vide RC No.409/PLG.II/2008 inviting applications for their absorption in the APVVP. The petitioners who are well aware of the notification have not opted for the services into APVVP and made representations on 06.04.2011 and 19.11.2012 by the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner made representation on 20.10.2020 to consider their names for the final ensuing seniority list for Senior Assistant duly including their names in the appropriate place duly considering the date of joining in the cadre of Junior Assistant. They made their applications after lapse of three years after inviting objections for absorption into APVVP and the 2nd petitioner has made representation after lapse of 12 years from the date of notification. 19. They made their applications after lapse of three years after inviting objections for absorption into APVVP and the 2nd petitioner has made representation after lapse of 12 years from the date of notification. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed their reply affidavit for the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and admitted that at para No.8 and 9 prior to 2008 there was no clear demarcation between the Director of Health (Preventive) Medicines and APVVP and DPH&FW institutions were used to be promoted through combined seniority list by promoting authorities of DPH&FW i.e. Regional Director, in respect of Zonal post, in respect of State cadre posts and were used to be posted to institutions of APVVP, DPH&FW and DME as per the available vacancies till 2008. Where, the petitioners were aware of the fact that an amendment was promulgated by way of Act No.36 of 2008 and a proviso was incorporated in Section 11 of the APVVP Amendment Act. As per the Act, they have invited applications for absorption of the employees who are under the control of APVVP prior to 2008. The petitioners were not responded for the said notification. Now, they cannot avail the remedy seeking a direction from this court to direct the respondent authorities to consider their case on the grounds that they have initially appointed under the APVVP Act and they were given promotions and their services were regularized by the APVVP. A prudent man ought to respond for the notification when invited applications to absorption into APVVP and Section 12 which was incorporated by Act No.36 of 2008, a power was given to the Commissioner calling for options from the employees who are working on deputation for absorption in the services of the APVVP. 20. As rightly contested by the respondents, the petitioner has made their applications only with an ulterior motive, with prospectus of promotional avenues in APVVP. The principle is well settled that where any such provision provides a principle meant for being a particular Act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with law manner prescribed. Basing on the amendment made to the APVVP to Section 11, the respondent authorities have invited objections for absorption into APVVP but the petitioners have not availed the said opportunity for absorption into APVVP. 21. Basing on the amendment made to the APVVP to Section 11, the respondent authorities have invited objections for absorption into APVVP but the petitioners have not availed the said opportunity for absorption into APVVP. 21. As per the assertions made in the Writ Affidavit at para-7 it was stated that while the petitioners were working as Junior Assistants under A.P. Vaidhya Vidhana Parishad without their volitions, the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Kadapa has called for the service particulars of all the Junior Assistants/Junior Stenos/Junior typists working in all the institutions including institutions functioning under the control of A.P. Vaidhya Vidhana Parishad under Zone-IV Chittoor, Kadapa, Anantapur and Kurnool districts for effecting promotions to the existing vacant posts of Senior Assistant including institutions working under the Administrative control of A.P. Vaidhya Vidhana Parishad. As per instructions of the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Kadapa, both the petitioners have attended for the counseling along with other eligible candidates including the candidates working under the A.P. Vaidhya Vidhana Parishad on 10.10.2002. During the above said counseling, the petitioners were promoted as Senior Assistants and posted in the existing vacancies under the administrative control of A.P. Vaidhya Vidhana Parishad i.e., District Hospital Chittoor and Area Hospital Kuppam respectively, and their services were regularized as Senior Assistant and their probation was declared satisfactorily as Senior Assistant on 15.10.2003 and 06.11.2003 respectively. Since then they have been discharging their duties as Senior Assistant in the Office of the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services. As per the said assertions, the petitioners were absorbed in the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services but not as deputationists under Rule-110 of A.P Fundamental Rules. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners were appointed on deputation as per assertion in affidavit their absorption is not on deputation. 22. Deputation means Service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside the cadre, that is to say, another department on temporary basis. After expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile, he has been promoted in his parent department as per recruitment rules. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside the cadre, that is to say, another department on temporary basis. After expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile, he has been promoted in his parent department as per recruitment rules. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The deputation is a Tripartite Agreement which involves lending department, borrowing department and the person sent on deputation. The consent of all the three is required for an agreement to mature into a legal deputation. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunal Nanda case i.e. Kunal Nanda Vs Union of India, 2005 (5) SCC 362 held that a deputation cannot asserted and succeed in his claim for permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation unless his claim is based upon a statutory rule or regulation or order having the force of law, a deputation can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department at the instance of either borrowing department or parent department there is no definite right to such person to continue for long or get absorption in borrowing department. In the present case, the petitioner was not transferred to the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services on deputation he was absorbed in the said department while all the departments under one umbrella if the petitioners are deputationists this court ought to have been ordered for repartition of the petitioner to the parent department as the petitioners are not in deputation, this court is not inclined to allow the writ petition for the relief claimed. 24. The contentions of the petitioners that they are appointed under A.P.V.V.P. and they should be treated as employees of Vadhya Vidhana Parishad is hereby rejected as they were absorbed by the Regional Director of Health and Medical Services and they have not opted their services for the absorption in A.P.V.V.P. basing upon the notification dated 29.08.2008 vide proceedings in R.C. No.409/Plg.II/2008. Came to know about the promotional avenues the present writ petition has been filed and there is a delay of 3 years in making representation by the petitioners to APVVP to consider their case. 25. Came to know about the promotional avenues the present writ petition has been filed and there is a delay of 3 years in making representation by the petitioners to APVVP to consider their case. 25. As such, now the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, much less relief for seniority as prayed for. Hence, I found no reasons to grant any relief as prayed by the petitioners. 26. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.