JUDGMENT : Farjand Ali, J. 1. Grievance & Prayer :- 1.1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner ventilating his grief over his relieving from services rendered by him on deputation by the respondent - Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure-19) in compliance of the order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-14) passed by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as ‘the RRVUNL’.] by which his deputation was cancelled. 1.2. The petitioner has sought benevolence of this Court to quash and set aside the said relieving order as well as to reinstate him on deputation. 2. Facts of the case :- 2.1. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in RRVUNL on 28.01.2015; however, later on, following the advertisement dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-1) issued by the respondent - Department of Consumer Affairs, he applied for and, after meeting the eligibility criteria and completing the due selection process, he was appointed on the post of Inspector, Legal Metrology on deputation vide order dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure-2). In compliance thereof, the petitioner joined his duties and successfully completed requisite training course as directed to him through various orders. 2.2. Surprisingly, vide order dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure-7), the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department i.e. RRVUNL, therefore, relieved from duties and replaced by one Mahipal Singh. The said order was challenged by the petitioner through S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4537/2020[Titled as ‘Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.’], wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) while admitting a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4605/2020 [Titled as ‘Ramchandra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’.] , including the writ petition of petitioner, stayed the effect and operation of the orders of repatriation of all the petitioners therein, including the repatration order of the petitioner dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure-7), and also directed that all the petitioners therein shall not be repatriated to their parent departments. 2.3. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’.] , including the writ petition of petitioner, stayed the effect and operation of the orders of repatriation of all the petitioners therein, including the repatration order of the petitioner dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure-7), and also directed that all the petitioners therein shall not be repatriated to their parent departments. 2.3. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned interim order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8), the State Government as well as the private respondents/counterparts of the petitioners of those writ petitions, preferred separate special appeal writs led by D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.427/2020 [Titled as ‘Bhop Raj Jatav & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’.] before the Division Bench of this Court, who vide judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11) disposed of all those appeals granting liberty to all the parties to contest all the issues on merits before the learned Single Judge in the above mentioned pending writ petitions. The Division Bench also clarified the Para 28 of the order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) while holding that the petitioners of those writ petitions, including the present petitioner too, will not be repatriated to their parent department and the appointment of the private respondents of those writ petitions will remain subject to the final outcome of the respective those rit petitions as the issue involved therein are still pending consideration and adjudication. 2.4. The parent department of the petitioner i.e. RRVUNL passed an order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-14) cancelling the deputation of the petitioner with intimation to the concern departments. Upon receiving this information, the respondent - Department of Consumer Affairs vide communication dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure-15) expressed its inability to relieve the employees working as Inspector, Legal Metrology due to unavailability of sufficient number of trained/experienced officers as the enactment of service rules as well as regular appointments are still under process and requested the RRVUNL to maintain the status quo. 2.5. The RRVUNL again vide letter dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure-16) directed the petitioner along with other similarly situated employees to immediately report to their previous offices, failing which, disciplinary action shall be initiated against them. A copy of the same was also sent to the respondent - Department of Consumer Affairs, who, in response to that, vide communication date 29.02.2024 (Annexure-17) reiterated its inability to relieve the personnel working as Inspector, Legal Metrology, as stated in its earlier communication dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure-15). 2.6. A copy of the same was also sent to the respondent - Department of Consumer Affairs, who, in response to that, vide communication date 29.02.2024 (Annexure-17) reiterated its inability to relieve the personnel working as Inspector, Legal Metrology, as stated in its earlier communication dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure-15). 2.6. The RRVUNL again vide letter dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure-18) strictly advised the petitioner along with other similarly situated personnel to immediately report to their previous offices, failing which, disciplinary action shall be initiated against them for non-complaince of the order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-14). 2.7. Finally, the respondent - Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan vide its order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure-19) relieved the petitioners and other personnel working as Inspector, Legal Metrology in pursuance of the order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-14) issued by the RRVUNL. 2.8. Hence, the instant writ petition. 3. Petitioner’s Contentions :- 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Inspector, Legal Metrology on deputation, after fulfilling all the requisite eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-1). Additionally as per Point No.4 of the said advertisement, the said recruitment was made on deputation until service rules for Inspector Legal Metrology are enacted and regular appointments are made. However, as a matter of fact the same are still under process, which is evident from Para No.2 of each communications dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure-15) and 29.02.20214 (Annexurs-17), and thus, the petitioner cannot be repatriated on this count alone. In such circumstances, the order under assail is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is liable to be reinstated on deputation. 3.2. It is also submitted that the impugned order of repatriation of the petitioner has been passed in violation of the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the interim order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) and judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11) respectively, vide which, it was directed that that the petitioners of above referred writ petitions will not be repatriated to their parent department. Despite the fact that the above directions are still operational in favour of the petitioner, his repatriation is in contravention of those directions. Thus, the order under assail is not sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside 3.3. Despite the fact that the above directions are still operational in favour of the petitioner, his repatriation is in contravention of those directions. Thus, the order under assail is not sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside 3.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that similarly situated one Ramkunvar working as Inspector, Legal Metrology had also challenged his relieving order before the learned Single Judge of this Court at Jaipur Bench by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5564/2021 [Titled as ‘Ramkunvar Vs. State of Rajasthan’], wherein vide order dated 07.05.2021 (Annexure-10) the effect and operation of his relieving order were stayed. The application filed on behalf of the State for vacation of the said stay order was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 03.09.2021 (Annexure-12) with the similar observations as made by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11) passed in bunch of special appeal writs led by D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.427/2020 and directed that the interim order dated 07.05.2021 (Annexure-10) shall be read in conjunction with the order of the Division Bench. Based on the above facts, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named personnel, therefore, it is prayed that the order impugned may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be reinstated on deputation. 3.4. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn attention towards the order dated 06.08.2024 and two separate orders dated 23.08.2024 and submitted that similarly situated personnel working as Inspector, Legal Metrology viz. Bhhop Raj Jatav, Prateek Soni and Smt. Sandhya Soni were repatriated until further orders of this Court in compliance of the judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of special appeal writs led by D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.427/2020. However, this has not been done in the case of petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that though vide communication dated 30.07.2024, it was requested to relieve one Mahesh Chand Jangir, but no heed was paid to it and he was not relieved, thus, the petitioner deserves the same treatment. 3.5. However, this has not been done in the case of petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that though vide communication dated 30.07.2024, it was requested to relieve one Mahesh Chand Jangir, but no heed was paid to it and he was not relieved, thus, the petitioner deserves the same treatment. 3.5. In support of the above contentions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the decision dated 16.07.2012 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.5225/2012) Reported in (2012) 7 SCC 757 , the decision dated 05.02.2016 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. I.K. Mannsoori Vs. Union of India & Ors. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Wrti) No.1080/2015] Reported in ‘2016 (2) WLC (Raj.) 769, the decision dated 10.5.2011 rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhag Chand Verma & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Ors. Reported in ‘2011 (4) WLC (Raj.) 324’. 3.6. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned relieving order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure-19) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be reinstated on deputation. 4. Respondents’ Contentions :- 4.1. Per contra, learned AAG, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement on deputation as a matter of right due to twofold reasons : (i) the circular governing the duration of deputation stipulates a maximum period of five years, and (ii) the General Condition 5(8) of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited Employees’ Service Regulation stipulates that an employee may remain on deputation for a maximum period four years; which the petitioner had already completed. Thus, the order impugned is just, proper and liable to be maintained and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4.2. Learned AAG submits that the petitioner was taken on deputation pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-1) and as per which, the deputed person was to be returned back to his/her parent department after framing of service rules and regular recruitment. 4.2. Learned AAG submits that the petitioner was taken on deputation pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-1) and as per which, the deputed person was to be returned back to his/her parent department after framing of service rules and regular recruitment. However, this does not give any right to continue against the wishes of the parent department, who cancelled the deputation of the petitioner vide order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-14), therefore, the answering respondents cannot continue the petitioner after the cancellation of deputation by his parent department and the order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure-19) has been passed in accordance with law. 4.3. It is further submitted that the interim order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) and the judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11) were passed by the Coordinate Bench and the Division Bench respectively in a limited purview, specifically not to repatriate the petitioner due to posting of private respondents. However, the Coordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench while passing the interim order and judgment ibid gave a conscious finding that if the State intents to depute private respondents, then the said interim order and judgment will not prevent it and the petitioner will not be repatriated to his parent department on account of appointment of any private respondents. Nevertheless, the interim order as well as judgment ibid do not provide that in the event the parent department requires service of the petitioner, then he will not be sent back. The petitioner was relieved vide impugned order in accordance with law since the RRVUNL has cancelled his deputation, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4.4. Furthermore, the learned AAG submits that the respondents have already selected the candidates on the post of Inspector, Legal Metrology through the regular selection process and they have been sent for training vide order dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure-R/2); therefore, the petitioner has no right to continue as Inspector, Legal Metrology on deputation as per the Point No.4 of the advertisement dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-1), which was accepted by the petitioner at the time of filing of the application. Thus, no interference of this Court is called for. 4.5. Learned AAG further submits that the respondents have already recruited the Enforcement Officers through RPSC and they have been sent for necessary training for Inspector, Legal Metrology vide orders dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure-R/2) and 02.08.2024 (Annexure-R/3); therefore, the petitioner cannot claim continuance of his deputation. Thus, no interference of this Court is called for. 4.5. Learned AAG further submits that the respondents have already recruited the Enforcement Officers through RPSC and they have been sent for necessary training for Inspector, Legal Metrology vide orders dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure-R/2) and 02.08.2024 (Annexure-R/3); therefore, the petitioner cannot claim continuance of his deputation. To bolster the above contention, the additional affidavit along with the supporting documents have been placed on record in pursuance of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2024. 4.6. It is argued that after the selection of regular candidates, the administrative exigency has come to an end, therefore, there is no vested right for the petitioner to continue on deputation for a long period or to be absorbed in the department to which he was sent on deputation. In such circumstances, there is no illegality in relieving the petitioner vide order under assail. 4.7. It is further argued that the period of deputation can be extended only by the parent department of the petitioner, which was not extended; rather, his deputation was cancelled vide order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-14), as he had already completed five years on deputation. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement on deputation is not sustainable and deserves to be rejected. 4.8. To support the aforementioned arguments, learned AAG places reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Inder Singh & Ors. Reported in ‘ (1997) 8 SCC 372 ’, Kunal Nanda Vs. UOI Reported in ‘ AIR 2000 SC 2076 ’, UP Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh Vs. Dayaram Saroj & Ors. Reported in ‘ (2007) 2 SCC 138 ’ and Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.N. Maity & Anr. Reported in ‘ (2015) 4 SCC 164 ’ as well as the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. I.K. Mannsoori (supra) by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in a bunch of writ petitions led by Durgesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10416/2024). 4.9. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed with cost. 5. Observations :- 5.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material as made available to this Court. 5.2. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10416/2024). 4.9. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed with cost. 5. Observations :- 5.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material as made available to this Court. 5.2. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the defence taken on behalf of both the parties, it is observed that in an earlier round of litigation, after a detailed discussion on each and every aspect of the matter, all the grounds were thoroughly dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11) passed in bunch of special appeal writs led by D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.427/2020 and disposed of that appeals filed against the interim order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4605/2020, including the writ petition of the petitioners, which are pending consideration, thus, there remains no strong ground for the respondents to repatriate the petitioner. 5.3. The learned Single Judge vide interim order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) stayed the effect and operation of the order of repatriation of the petitioners therein, including the present petitioner, while passing the following other directions :- “(26) In the facts and circumstances, it is hereby ordered that the petitioners of these writ petitions shall not be repatriated to their parent department. (27) Stay applications in all the captioned writ petitions stand disposed of. (28) On successful completion of the courses, if the State intends to depute the private respondents as Metrology Officers, instant order will not come in way.” 5.4. The subject of dispute between the contesting parties in the litigation before the Division Bench was the above mentioned direction given by the learned Single Judge in Para No.(28) of the order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8), which was clarified by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11), while holding thus :- “The writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge are pending consideration and adjudication of the issues involved therein is yet to be undertaken. At this stage, without expressing any view on merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present appeals while granting liberty to the State Government to provisionally utilize the services of the private respondents in the writ petitions and to post them on the available posts of Legal Metrology Officer in accordance with the observations made in Para 28 of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.08.2020. It is clarified here that in case, posting is given to the private respondents on successful completion of the training course as contemplated in Para 28 of the order of the learned Single Judge, the same would not create any equity in their favour and shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioners in the writ petitions and none of the petitioners will be repatriated to their parent department on account of appointments of such private respondents, that is to say, the position of the writ petitioners in the writ petitions shall not be altered by any means. The issues which are pending consideration before the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions shall remain open for consideration. The parties shall be at the liberty to contest all the issues on merits before the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petitions and the posts so provided to the private respondents will remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions and/or any interim order passed therein, as the case may be. It is again clarified that this order shall not be considered to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. With the above observations, all the appeals are disposed of” (emphasis supplied) 5.5. Since the earlier round of litigation is pending consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which granted the interim order, and the Division Bench clarified that interim order holding that none of the petitioners will be repatriated to their parent department on account of appointments of such private respondents and their position shall not be altered by any means, which is still in currency, therefore, the order under assail is nothing but a contemptuous act of the respondents despite having above directions of Coordinate Bench as well as Division Bench of this Court. 5.6. 5.6. The defence taken by the petitioner with regard to condition outlined in Point No.4 of the advertisement dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-1), wherein the petitioner claims his reinstatement on deputation on the grounds that, as per the aforesaid condition, he cannot repatriate until the rules are framed or any appointment is made, is not sustainable as the petitioner does not claim the reinstatement as a matter of right. 5.7. Whereas the defence taken by the respondents with regard to the aforesaid condition that the petitioner was repatriated after regular recruitment made, as stipulated in that condition, is also not sustainable because the interim order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) as well as the judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11) are in currency in favour of the petitioner, which does not give any green light to the respondents to repatriate the petitioner after regular appointments are made. 5.8. A perusal of the letters/communications dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-14), 28.02.2024 (Annexure-16) and 15.03.2024 (Annexure-18) sent by the parent department of the petitioner i.e. RRVUNL canelling his deputation, revealing that there is no administrative exigency with it. However, had there been any administrative exigency, the parent department of the petitioner would have an alternate remedy to file an application for that purpose before the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petition and not doing so is an action against the interim order as well as the judgment ibid passed by the Coordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court. 5.9. The respondent - Department of Consumer Affairs vide its communications dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure-15) and 29.02.2024 (Annexure-17), on the one hand, expressed its inability to relieve the petitioner due to the unavailability of sufficient number of trained/experienced officers, as the enactment of service rules as well as regular appointments are still under process, and requested the RRVUNL to maintain the status quo. On the other hand, it is argued that the administrative exigency has come to an end, therefore, the petitioner has no vested right to continue on deputation for a long period or to be absorbed in the department to which he was sent on deputation. Upon reviewing the matter, it is observed that neither the Coordinate Bench nor the Division Bench have given approval for the repatriation of the petitioner, considering the administrative exigency, in their interim order and judgment ibid. 6. Conclusion/Opinion :- 6.1. Upon reviewing the matter, it is observed that neither the Coordinate Bench nor the Division Bench have given approval for the repatriation of the petitioner, considering the administrative exigency, in their interim order and judgment ibid. 6. Conclusion/Opinion :- 6.1. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the firm opinion that the repatriation of the petitioner by the respondents vide order under assail, is a contemptuous act because doing so is the violation of interim order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) and the judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11) passed by the Coordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court receptively in favour of the petitioner. 6.2. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant writ petition holding that the order of repatriation of the petitioner made by the RRVUNL was against the judgment dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure-11) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of special appeal writs, which, in expressed terms, has restrained the respondent department to alter the position of the petitioner in any manner. I am of the considered view that passing a subsequent order of repatriation is certainly an alteration of the position of the petitioner and as such, the same is a willful disobedience of the judgment passed by the Division Bench, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. 6.3. Allowing the respondent department to make further order for repatriation of the petitioner during the pendency of the previous litigation and currency of interim order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-8) in his favour, would surely tantamount of contemptuous situation and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Verdict :- 7.1. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. The repatriation order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-14) as well as the relieving order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure-19) of the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. 7.2. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on deputation with immediate effect. 7.3. Stay petition is disposed of. 7.4. No order as to cost. 8. Direction for office :- 8.1. The order dated 06.08.2024, two separate orders dated 23.08.2024 and communication dated 30.07.2024 be taken on record.