ORDER : (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to set-aside the order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner has been posted on deputation with State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and order dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure P/2) by which the petitioner has been relieved for joining as Deputy Director at SCERT, Raipur to allow the petitioner to discharge duties on the post of Incharge, Joint Director, Sarguja Division. 2. The brief facts, as reflected from the records are that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director in the School Education Department. He was transferred on 18.08.2021 from Durg to Bastar and within 6 months he was again transferred on 08.02.2022 from the office of Joint Director, Bastar to the office of Joint Director Sarguja as Incharge, Joint Director, where he again joined at Sarguja. Thereafter, again the petitioner was transferred from the post of Joint Director, Sarguja to DPI, Raipur vide order dated 13.12.2022. Being aggrieved with frequent transfer, the petitioner has filed writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No. 9208/2022 and vide order dated 03.01.2023, this Court has granted interim protection by staying the effect and operation of transfer order dated 13.12.2022 and the interim protection is still continuing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 01.08.2023. He has challenged his suspension before this Court by filing WPS No. 9251 of 2023 before this Court and this Court has quashed the suspension order on 14.12.2023 and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner. The petitioner joined on 21.12.2023 thereafter vide impugned order dated 11.01.2024 after revoking suspension of petitioner posted him by way of deputation as Deputy Director with the State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) Raipur, without cancelling earlier transfer order dated 13.12.2022, without taking permission from this Hon'ble Court during concurrency of stay order dated 03.01.2023, without obtaining consent from the petitioner for sending him on deputation, without there being any sanctioned post of Deputy Director available with the respondent SCERT, without taking any approval in coordination from Hon'ble Chief Minister. Thereafter the petitioner is relieved exparte vide order dated 12.03.2024 by the respondent Incharge Joint Director mentioning himself as Joint Director. 4. Thereafter the petitioner is relieved exparte vide order dated 12.03.2024 by the respondent Incharge Joint Director mentioning himself as Joint Director. 4. It is further submitted that as per the set up of respondent SCERT in the year 2002 only 1 post of Deputy Director in Publication Cell was created and sanctioned which was surrendered vide order dated 25.02.2006 and as per present status also no post of Deputy Director is sanctioned or available in the respondent SCERT, therefore, it is ample clear that the petitioner is posted by way of deputation in respondent SCERT in the post of Deputy Director without there being any post of Deputy Director sanctioned or available in respondent SCERT. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not the parent department of petitioner is School Education Department of Chhattisgarh and he is posted in cadre post of Deputy Director whereas respondent SCERT is foreign department/council outside the cadre of petitioner, therefore, before sending petitioner on deputation in respondent SCERT consent of petitioner is necessary but no consent has been obtained before passing the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 and would pray for quashing of the impugned orders. 6. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court whereby the law is well settled that without consent employee cannot be sent on deputation in case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Inder Singh & others reported in 1997 SCC (8) 372, Sarita Singh Vs. Shree Infosoft Private Limited reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 65. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the substantive post of the petitioner is the post of Deputy Director having the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100/- plus Grade Pay Rs. 6600/-. Shree Infosoft Private Limited reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 65. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the substantive post of the petitioner is the post of Deputy Director having the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100/- plus Grade Pay Rs. 6600/-. She would further submit that as per instructions /directions issued by the State government for posting of the teacher through counseling are found not to be followed by the petitioner and the petitioner has been reported to be involved in committing corruption by taking money against issuance of modified posting orders, taking into account the conduct of the petitioner seriously to be a gross misconduct and contrary to service rules, the State Government took a decision to place the petitioner under suspension and accordingly vide order dated 01/08/2023, the petitioner was suspended under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and his Headquarter was fixed at DPI, Raipur. She would further submit that for conducting an independent and fair enquiry, the petitioner would be required to be posted at a place other than where he was posted at the time of suspension, since the departmental enquiry is pending with respect to misconduct of the petitioner so done by him at the time of his aforesaid place of posting. Thus, in order to meet the requirement of principles of natural justice and conduct a fair enquiry, the petitioner is required to be posted elsewhere. She would further submit that the petitioner has filed the writ petition vide W.P. (S) No. 9251/2023 challenging the suspension order dated 01/08/2023 on the ground that even after completion of 90 days of their suspension, no order of extension of their suspension has been passed by the respondent authority and suspension of the petitioner has not been revoked. In the said writ petition, the State Government pleaded that within 90 days of suspension, the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner and further the order of extension of suspension has also been issued on 22/11/2023. She would further submit that, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 14/12/2023, this Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the suspension order dated 01/08/2023 and the petitioner has been directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. In compliance of the order, the petitioner was reinstated vide impugned order (Annexure P/1). She would further submit that, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 14/12/2023, this Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the suspension order dated 01/08/2023 and the petitioner has been directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. In compliance of the order, the petitioner was reinstated vide impugned order (Annexure P/1). She would further submit that this Court has passed interim order dated 03/01/2023 staying the effect and operation of the transfer order dated 13/12/2022 while the impugned order dated 11/03/2024 (Annexure P/1) reinstating the petitioner in service from suspension has been issued in compliance of the order dated 14/12/2023 passed in W.P. (S) No. 9251/2023, as such there is no violation of the order passed by this Court. 8. She would further submit that so far as contention of the petitioner that without obtaining consent from him, he has been posted at SCERT, is concerned, in this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the Fundamental Rule 110 empowers the Government to post its employee without obtaining consent at such institution which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government. Rule 110 of the Fundamental Rules provides for- "Fundamental Rule 110- Authorities competent to transfer a Government servant to foreign service- (a) No Government servant may be transferred to foreign ser-vice against his will: Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to the transfer of a Government servant to the service of a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government." 9. She would further submit that on a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, especially the proviso, it would be evident that with respect to deputations to a body which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government, in the present case, State Government, the State Council of Educational Research and Training is a council established primarily for activities relating to school education in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is governed by the School Education Department and funds for the purpose of governing the activities including salaries and other allowances of the employees of SCERT are being paid by the School Education Department. Thus, it is quite vivid that the SCERT is a body under the control of the Government of Chhattisgarh. As such, in the present case, consent of the petitioner is not required. Thus, it is quite vivid that the SCERT is a body under the control of the Government of Chhattisgarh. As such, in the present case, consent of the petitioner is not required. To substantiate this submission, copy of documents showing allocation of budget to the SCERT is also filed. 10. It has been further contended that the case of the petitioner is not a single case of posting at SCERT whereas on earlier occasions, the State Government, Department of School Education has also posted the officers of Department of School Education at SCERT without obtaining their consent. Earlier, in the year 2010 and 2019 also, the petitioner was posted at SCERT as Professor and the petitioner himself enjoyed his posting at SCERT and he has not ever challenged his posting at SCERT before any authority of law prior to filing of the present case. It has been further contended that his services are governed by the School Education Rules, 2019 and the services of the SCERT are governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2013 and therefore, the service at SCERT is a foreign service, is concerned, the said contention of the petitioner sans merit. It has been further contended that so far as the contention of the petitioner that at SCERT, the post of Deputy Director is not sanctioned and same is misconceived as per the Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, post of Professor has been provided and as per Schedule-I appended to the said Rules, 2013, it would be evident that the post of Professor is at par with the post of Deputy Director having same pay scale as well as grade pay and same appointing authority Further, as per Schedule II, 25% post of Professor is to be filled by deputation and rest by promotion. Thus, it is evident that the posts of Deputy Director and Professor are equivalent, Class I post. It is further submitted that since the post of Professor is equivalent to the post of Deputy Director, therefore, there is no adverse impact either in rank or in the pay scale or in the services of the petitioner and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. To substantiate her submission, she would refer to the judgment rendered by Division Bench of High Court in the matter of L.P. Saket Vs. 11. To substantiate her submission, she would refer to the judgment rendered by Division Bench of High Court in the matter of L.P. Saket Vs. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (W.P.S No. 7269/2017 decided on 15/11/2018) and Ashwani Kumar Mire Vs. State of CG. and others (WPS NO. 250/2022 decided on 18/01/2022). 12. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder and contended that the service of the petitioner is governed under C.G. School Education Service Rules 2019 and the service of employees of SCERT is governed by the Chhattisgarh SCERT Service Recruitment Rules 2013, as such both are governed by different set of rules, therefore, it is a deputation to foreign service and for which consent is necessary and without consent, petitioner cannot be sent on SCERT. He would further submit that recently in the judgment reported in 2022 SCC online SC 65 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had relied upon earlier judgment and has held that the deputation involves tripartite consensual agreement between the lending employer, borrowing employer and the employee. He would further submit that the petitioner is posted by way of deputation outside the cadre of petitioner, in different organization i.e. SCERT whose employees services are governed by different statutory rules where even no post of Deputy Director is prescribed or sanctioned in the setup and particular posts are prescribed which can be filled by way of Deputation and since no post of Deputy Director is available therefore there is no intent of legislature while framing Recruitment Rules of SCERT to post/appoint by way of deputation any employee from outside cadre in the post of Deputy Director in SCERT. He would further submit that according to Rule 6 read with Schedule II of the Rules 2013, it is clearly evident that in no condition more than 25% posts of total 7 posts of Sl.No. 2 of Schedule II can be filled by way of deputation, whereas 2 posts of Joint Director of SCERT is already filled by way of deputation from Shri J.P. Rath and Shri K. Kumar. Similarly post of Principal Institute of Advance Studies in Education of SCERT is filled by deputation of Shri Manoj Singh, who is posted at Bilaspur, as only one post is available at Bilaspur and 3 post of Professor SIEMAT is filled by deputation of Dr. Kamayani Kashyap, Smt. Pushpa Kispotta and Smt. Divya Claret Lakra. Similarly post of Principal Institute of Advance Studies in Education of SCERT is filled by deputation of Shri Manoj Singh, who is posted at Bilaspur, as only one post is available at Bilaspur and 3 post of Professor SIEMAT is filled by deputation of Dr. Kamayani Kashyap, Smt. Pushpa Kispotta and Smt. Divya Claret Lakra. Shri J. P. Rath and Shri K. Kumar are holding substantive post of Joint Director, Shri Manoj Singh, Dr. Kamayani Kashyap, Smt. Pushpa Kispotta and Smt Divya Claret Lakra are holding substantive post of Deputy Director in C.G. School Education Department and all are sent on deputation in respondent SCERT in complete violation of Rules 2013 as responsible authorities of respondent State have no respect of its own Rules and posted by deputation, more Officers than the rules prescribed to be posted by way of deputation. In view of above also petitioner cannot be sent on deputation in respondent SCERT in clear violation of provisions of Rule 6 read with Schedule II of Rules 2013. 13. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 14. From the submission made by the parties, the points required for determination of this Court are:- Point No. 1- Whether the petitioner’s posting at SCERT is on deputation or not and if the same is deputation, whether without consent of the petitioner, the posting of the petitioner at SCERT is legal and justify. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the service condition of the petitioner is governed by the Service Recruitment Rules, 2019 whereas the service condition of the employee of the SCERT is governed by the Rules, 2013, therefore, it is a separate department, as such it is a foreign service as defined under Rule 110 of the Fundamental Rules, therefore, it is a transfer to foreign service, therefore, it is deputation, as such, consent is very much required. This submission deserves to be rejected in view of the fact that the posting of the petitioner cannot be treated as foreign service. The foreign service has been defined in Chapter-II Fundamental Rule 9 sub-rule 7 as well as Rule 110 of the Fundamental Rules. This submission deserves to be rejected in view of the fact that the posting of the petitioner cannot be treated as foreign service. The foreign service has been defined in Chapter-II Fundamental Rule 9 sub-rule 7 as well as Rule 110 of the Fundamental Rules. The Foreign Service means “service in which a Government servant receives his substantive pay with the sanction of Government from any source other than the Consolidate Fund of India or the Consolidate Fund of any State or the Consolidate Fund of a Union Territory.” The Fundamental Rule 110 provides authority competent to transfer a Government servant to a foreign service and this Rule specifically provides that this rule is not applicable to the transfer of a Government servant to the service of a body, incorporated or not which is wholly or substantially controlled by the Government. Fundamental Rule 110 reads as under:- “Fundamental Rule 110.- Authorities competent to transfer of a Government servant to Foreign Service- (a) No government servant may be transferred to foreign service against his will: Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule shall not apply to the transfer of a government servant to the service of a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government. (b) A transfer to Foreign Service outside India, may be sanctioned by the Governor-General-in-Council. Note- The Government of Madras is authorized to transfer to service in Ceylon any Government servant other than a member of a All India Service. (c) Subject to any restriction which the Governor-General-in-Council, may by general order impose in the case of transfer to the service of an Indian State, a transfer to a Foreign Service in India, may be sanctioned by the local Government under which the Government servant transferred is serving.” 16. From perusal of Fundamental Rule 110, it is clear that if the body, incorporated or not which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government then provisions of Fundamental Rule 110 are not applicable. In light of this provision, the establishment of SCERT/respondent No. 4 is considered, it is held that the respondent No. 4 is a educational research and training council established primarily for activities relating to School Education Department and the funds for the purposes the governing the activities including the salary of the employees of SCERT, it is being paid by the School Education Department. The respondents have also annexed copy of the budget allotting funds to the SCERT. Thus, it is quite vivid that the fund is allocated to the SCERT by the School Education Department, as such and it is a wholly or substantially owned by the State Government, therefore, as such transfer of the petitioner to respondent No. 4 cannot be treated to foreign service to fall within the ambit of deputation. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not denied the factum of fund provided by the State Government to the SCERT either in the rejoinder or in the oral submission made during course of hearing. 17. The further contention of the petitioner that there is no post of Deputy Director in the SCERT, therefore, transfer of the petitioner without any sanction post of Deputy Director is illegal, also deserves to be rejected as the respondents have categorically mentioned that as per the Recruitment Rules 2013 Schedule-I of the SCERT, the post of Professor is equal to the pay scale of Deputy Director i.e. Rs. 15,600-39100/- plus grade of Rs. 6600/-. Thus, it is evident that the posts of Deputy Director and Professor are equivalent. 18. The further submission of the petitioner that as per Schedule-II of the Rules, 2013, only 25% posts have to be filled up by deputation whereas if the petitioner is posted, the set up will be adversely affected, as such the posting of the petitioner excess to the sanctioned post, is illegal. This submission also deserves to be rejected as the respondent/State can post employee excess to sanctioned strength looking to the exigency of work. Since by posting of the petitioner with the respondent No. 4, service condition of the petitioner is not adversely affected as his salary and other benefits shall remain intact. 19. The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner so far as deputation is not in dispute is concerned since it is not case of deputation, therefore, the judgment referred to by the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts of the case and distinguishable on facts of the case. 20. Considering the entire facts of the case and provisions of law, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been posted to foreign service to claim benefits of deputation. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merits dismissed.