JUDGMENT : (Vipul M. Pancholi, J.) The present appeals have been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules against common oral judgment dated 01.10.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3846 of 2017 and other analogous matters rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the present appellants/original petitioners. 2. As the issue involved in all these appeals is common, learned counsels appearing for the parties jointly requested that all these appeals be heard together and be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under: - 3.1. It is the case of the appellants/original petitioners that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers on different dates and in different years in different Government Primary and Secondary Schools. They possess the requisite qualifications for the said post. The Research and Training Directorate of Education Department, Government of Bihar, had come out with a notice for preparation of a panel for posting in various District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET), Teachers Training Colleges and Primary Teachers Training Colleges as Principals and Lecturers. For the said purpose, applications were invited from the members of the Bihar Education Service, (Administrative Cadre), Subordinate Education Service Cadre and other Officers and Teachers working in Government Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools. The said notice prescribed qualification for the aspirants willing to be empanelled in the light of the said notice. 3.2. It is the case of the appellants/original petitioners that their applications for empanellment of 294 applicants including these petitioners were shortlisted. 3.3. It is further stated that the Director (Research and Training) Department of Education requested the Director, Primary Education to handover the services of the Teachers so empanelled to the Research and Training Directorate. Further, the shortlisted candidates were made to participate in a workshop of Development Needs Analysis (‘DNA’) for selection from the shortlisted candidates for deputation in various institutions. Thereafter the workshop of DNA was organized in two stages. The petitioners were relieved to participate in the said DNA and ultimately 170 eligible candidates were declared successful including the petitioners. 3.4. Further, the shortlisted candidates were made to participate in a workshop of Development Needs Analysis (‘DNA’) for selection from the shortlisted candidates for deputation in various institutions. Thereafter the workshop of DNA was organized in two stages. The petitioners were relieved to participate in the said DNA and ultimately 170 eligible candidates were declared successful including the petitioners. 3.4. Thereafter, the Education Department, Government of Bihar, issued a letter on 05.06.2013 addressed to all the aspirants to the effect that a total of 170 Teachers had been identified for posting on deputation in Education Training Colleges. Such candidates were allowed to exercise three options for their posting against vacant posts. The case of the petitioners is that they also exercised their options and ultimately a total number of 150 candidates were posted as Lecturers on deputation basis in different District Education and Training Institutes and Primary Teachers Education College for a period of one year by an Office Order dated 23.07.2013. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in the said letter it was specifically mentioned that selected candidates were being posted on deputation basis and the decision to extend the period of deputation shall depend upon the satisfactory service of the deputed teachers. 3.5. Thereafter, the Bihar Education Service Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2014’) were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India came to be notified by the Education Department, Government of Bihar, vide Notification No. 698 dated 12.02.2014. The Rules stipulated that the Bihar Education Service shall have four sub-cadres namely (i) Administration Sub-Cadre, (ii) Training Sub-Cadre, (iii) Research and Training Sub-Cadre and (iv) An Isolated Sub-Cadre. 3.6. It is the case of the appellants/original petitioners that even after framing of the Rules of 2014, services of the petitioners was duly extended in 2015 onwards. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted their representation for inclusion in the said cadre of Research and Training. When no action was taken, they moved before this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 19031 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.08.2016, whereby direction was issued to the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, to consider and decide the representation within stipulated time. 3.7. When no action was taken, they moved before this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 19031 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.08.2016, whereby direction was issued to the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, to consider and decide the representation within stipulated time. 3.7. It is the grievance of the appellants/original petitioners that the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, passed orders dated 22.11.2016, whereby the claim of the petitioners came to be rejected. 3.8. The appellants/originals petitioners have, therefore, preferred the captioned writ petitions before this Court challenging the decision of the respondent authorities and it was prayed that the said decision be quashed and set aside and appropriate directions be issued for inclusion of the petitioners in the said cadre of Research and Training. 3.9. Learned Single Judge by impugned oral judgment dated 01.10.2021 dismissed the writ petitions and, therefore, the petitioners/appellants herein have preferred these appeals. 4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, in L.P.A. Nos. 628 of 2021, 629 of 2021 and 673 of 2021 and Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel in L.P.A. No. 685 of 2021 on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha on behalf of the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission. 5. Learned Counsels appearing for the appellants would mainly contend that the appellants/petitioners were possessing requisite educational qualifications and they have been appointed as Teachers through the examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC). Thereafter, by a notice issued from the Directorate of Research and Training, Education Department, Government of Bihar, applications were invited from eligible teachers and members of education services for preparation of list to fill up the posts of teachers in Training Colleges, District Institutes of Education and Training and Primary Teachers Education Colleges within the State of Bihar. Thereafter, it was decided to conduct the workshop for DNA for filling up of the said post and after following detailed process of examination and selection of eligible teachers working in different schools possessing requisite qualifications, the appellants/petitioners were selected for discharging the duties attached to the posts of Lecturers/Teachers in different Teachers Training Colleges. 5. 1. Thereafter, it was decided to conduct the workshop for DNA for filling up of the said post and after following detailed process of examination and selection of eligible teachers working in different schools possessing requisite qualifications, the appellants/petitioners were selected for discharging the duties attached to the posts of Lecturers/Teachers in different Teachers Training Colleges. 5. 1. It is further contended that Rules of 2014 were notified and as per the Rule 26(4) of Rules of 2014, all such officers, who had been recruited and selected and were working prior to coming into force of the said Rules were to be considered to be included in the sub-cadres of the services governed by the said Rules. 5.2. Learned counsel would submit that in fact the date on which the Rules were notified by the concerned authorities, the appellants were already working against different posts in the cadre of Education Service, Research and Training/Teaching of Education Department of the State Government and, therefore, they are entitled for being considered to be included in the sub-cadre of the said services. 5.3. Learned Advocates for the appellants assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge by contending that the learned Single Judge did not properly consider Rule 26(4) as well as Rule 27 of the Rules of 2014. It is contended that while giving appointment to the petitioners at various institutions, the respondents have wrongly used the word ‘deputation’ and, in fact, the deputation allowance was not given to the petitioners. Further they have been transferred to the other districts in the State and, therefore, practically for all purposes, it can be said that the petitioners were appointed by the concerned respondent authorities on the post at various institutions and, therefore, Rule 26(4) of the Rules of 2014 would apply. However, the learned Single Judge, after relying upon Rule 27 of the Rules held that the petitioners have been appointed on deputation, they are to be reverted back. 5.4. Learned counsel thereafter submits that Rule 27 of the Rules of 2014 envisages a couple of situations where a person working in the cadre would be subsumed if he has the requisite qualification but only if he gives an option for inclusion in the sub-cadre. 5.4. Learned counsel thereafter submits that Rule 27 of the Rules of 2014 envisages a couple of situations where a person working in the cadre would be subsumed if he has the requisite qualification but only if he gives an option for inclusion in the sub-cadre. He could be reverted back to his parent cadre only when he does not have requisite qualification or does not exercise his option for inclusion or his working on deputation basis. Further, so far as the last of categories mentioned in Rule 27 of the Rules of 2014 is concerned, it is of such persons who have been appointed on those posts, who would not be reverted back but would remain on their post but without any avenue of promotion. 5.5. Learned Advocates appearing for the appellants, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and thereby direction be issued to respondent authorities to absorb the appellants in the sub-cadres of Education Service, Research and Training/Teaching of Education Department of the State Government. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the present appeals. He would mainly contend that under demanding circumstances, with a view to run the educational training and research institutions of the Government of Bihar, applications were invited on 17.05.2012 from the Officers of Bihar Education Service (Administrative cadre), Subordinate Education Service and Teachers of Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools having qualifications prescribed with their willingness. However, competitive examination was not conducted to test the competence of the candidates for the aforesaid services. The programme, i.e., DNA, was organized prior to the posting of the petitioners on deputation basis in different Education and Training institutions as per the requirement. Learned counsel would further submit that vide Memo. No. 20 dated 14.01.2013, the petitioners were placed on deputation basis at the particular places. It is contended that at the relevant point of time, the Rules were not framed and notified. In fact, the petitioners accepted their posting on deputation basis at the relevant places and their deputation was extended from time to time. 6.1. No. 20 dated 14.01.2013, the petitioners were placed on deputation basis at the particular places. It is contended that at the relevant point of time, the Rules were not framed and notified. In fact, the petitioners accepted their posting on deputation basis at the relevant places and their deputation was extended from time to time. 6.1. Learned counsel for the respondents thereafter contended that Rule 26(4) of the Rules of 2014 would not be applicable to the case of the petitioners and as per Rule 27 of the Rules of 2014, as the petitioners were posted on deputation basis, they are required to be reverted back to the original post. 6.2. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order and thereafter also referred the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the writ petitions as well as in the present appeals and thereafter contended that the concerned respondents as well as the learned Single Judge have not committed any error while rejecting the claim of the present appellants/original petitioners. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that all these appeals be dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsels and we have also perused the materials placed on record and also considered the Rules of 2014. It would emerge from the record that it is the case of the original petitioners that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers on different dates and in different years in different Primary and Secondary Government Schools. It further transpires that the original petitioners possess Post Graduation qualification of M.Ed. and M.A. in Education. The Research & Training Directorate of Education Department, Government of Bihar, in order to prepare a panel of such teachers for their posting in various DIET, Teachers Training Colleges and Primary Teachers Training Colleges and as Principals and Lecturers, invited applications not only from amongst teachers but also persons of the Administrative Cadre of Bihar Educational Service, Sub-ordinate Educational Service and other officers working in the Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools of the Government. It was made clear in such invitation that application was being solicited only for the purposes of preparation of a panel which would not give any right to such empanelled persons to be posted as Principals or Lecturers in DIET or another training colleges. 8. It was made clear in such invitation that application was being solicited only for the purposes of preparation of a panel which would not give any right to such empanelled persons to be posted as Principals or Lecturers in DIET or another training colleges. 8. It further transpires from the record that pursuant to the aforesaid invitation by the Research And Training Directorate of Education, 294 persons including the appellants/petitioners were shortlisted and thereafter, their services in their respective organization was handed over to the Research And Training Directorate and those empanelled persons were made to undergo a workshop under the name of DNA, for selection and deputation in the colleges of Teachers Education, DIET etc. Further, out of those 294 empanelled persons, 170 eligible candidates including the appellants were declared finally successful, who were given the option of choosing their posting on the basis of their deputation in the Education Training Colleges. It also transpires that the appellants and other similarly situated empanelled and selected candidates exercised three options for their posting against vacant posts and 150 out of them were posted as lecturers in different District Education and Training Institutes and Teachers Training Colleges for one year. 9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid posting was done vide order dated 23.07.2013 in which it has been clearly stated that they were being posted in the colleges as Lecturers on deputation and their extension of such deputation would depend on their satisfactory service. 10. It would further reveal from the record that thereafter Rules of 2014 came into existence under which four sub-cadres were created in Bihar Education Services, one of them being Research & Training Sub-Cadre. It is relevant to note that the State of Bihar has framed the said Rules in exercise of power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, we would like to refer Rules 26(4), 27 and 28 of the Rules of 2014, which provide as under: “26. 1. xx xx xx 2. xx xx xx 3. xx xx xx 4. The officers recruited/promoted and working prior on the above posts will be considered included in the sub cadre. 27. The officers appointed/promoted and working on the above posts of this sub cadre and having the prescribed qualification of these posts shall give the option for inclusion in this sub cadre. xx xx xx 3. xx xx xx 4. The officers recruited/promoted and working prior on the above posts will be considered included in the sub cadre. 27. The officers appointed/promoted and working on the above posts of this sub cadre and having the prescribed qualification of these posts shall give the option for inclusion in this sub cadre. In case of having no qualification or not giving option for inclusion in this sub cadre or in case of working on deputation basis, they shall be reverted back to their own cadre, if they are appointed on these posts, they shall remain on their posts but they shall not get the benefit of regular promotion in this sub cadre. 28. Process of Appointment : (1) Appointment in the basic cadre shall be done as follows:- (i) There shall be direct appointment on the 50% posts of basic grade. (ii) Rest 50% posts shall be filled up on the basis of limited competitive examination from amongst the teachers working in government schools at least for three years and having requisite qualification for the posts. Relaxation of 5 years shall be given in their upper age limit. (iii) The posts of basic grade for appointment shall be done on the basis of subject wise vacancies and appointment shall also be done subject wise. (2) Minimum educational and training qualification |- Post graduate qualification having 55% marks from a recognised university and requisite qualification in the specific subject with 55% marks in M.ED. But that the department shall be competent to prescribe the specific qualification apart from the minimum educational and training qualification for the posts of different subjects. (3) Qualification - (i) The minimum qualification for direct appointment shall be graduate or equivalent from any recognised university. (4) The department will send the requisition to the commission by 30th April on the basis of the position of 1st April of every year calculating the 50% vacancies for direct appointment and 50% by promotion as per the roster. (5) The commission shall advertise the Number of 50% vacancies for direct appointment on the basis of received requisition. The appointment will be done as per the recommendation of the commission based on the result of combined competitive examination. (5) The commission shall advertise the Number of 50% vacancies for direct appointment on the basis of received requisition. The appointment will be done as per the recommendation of the commission based on the result of combined competitive examination. But, if the commission is not in a position to hold examination in a particular year or for some years then the commission would be competent to hold examination jointly for that year or for the years in which examination could not be held. But, this also that if the examination is held for more than one years according to the requisition, the commission could organise one examination for the year-specific or for the years together and the vacancies of the year-specific or vacancies of those years can be combined together for preparing the merit list of the candidates and in case of combined competitive examination of such years, it shall not be necessary to prepare separate merit list for each recruitment year. But in addition that in case of holding combined examination for the year-specific or for other years as a special circumstances, the candidates will be eligible to get relaxation in the maximum age limit given the candidate would have eligible for the year-specific for which a combined examination is being held. (6) The department shall calculate the subject wise posts for appointment.” 11. Now, it is the case of the appellants that as per the Rule 26(4) of Rules of 2014, all such officers, who had been recruited or promoted and were working prior to coming into force of the said Rules were to be considered to be included in the sub-cadres of the services governed by the said Rules. It is contended that the appellants were already working against different posts in the cadre of Education Service, Research and Training/Teaching of Education Department of the State Government on the date when the rules were notified and, therefore, they are entitled for being considered to be included in the sub-cadre of the said services. It is the grievance of the appellants that when they made representations for their absorption in the Sub-Cadre, exercising option under Rule 27 of the Rules of 2014, the same was rejected by the respondent-authority solely on the ground that the appellants were working in the same cadre on deputation. It is the grievance of the appellants that when they made representations for their absorption in the Sub-Cadre, exercising option under Rule 27 of the Rules of 2014, the same was rejected by the respondent-authority solely on the ground that the appellants were working in the same cadre on deputation. The grievance of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge also not properly interpreted Rule 27 of the Rules of 2014 and, therefore, the present appeals have been filed. 12. At this stage, it is relevant to note that this Court vide interim order dated 23.03.2023 recorded the facts of the case as well as the submissions canvassed by learned counsels and thereafter directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar to file an affidavit and clarify with regard to the provisions of the Rules in view of part 6 of the Rules, specifically Rule 51 of the Rules of 2014. Thereafter additional affidavit has been filed whereby the concerned authority has once again not entertained the claim of the appellants herein. 13. At this stage, we would like to refer the provision contained in Rule 26(4) of the Rules of 2014. As per the said provision, the officer who are recruited or promoted and working on the said posts or working on the posts prior to coming into force of the Rules were to be considered to be included in the sub cadres if the service is governed by the said Rules. However, from the materials placed on record, it would emerge that the appellants have not been recruited or promoted on the posts and they have been posted on deputation and, therefore, merely because they are working on the concerned posts on deputation basis, their claim for absorption in the sub cadres cannot be accepted. Hence, reliance upon Rule 26(4) of the Rules of 2014 is misconceived. 13.1. At this stage, interpretation of Rule 27 of the Rules of 2014 is required to be made. It has been specifically provided in Rule 27 that the officers appointed/promoted and working on the above posts of this sub cadre and having the prescribed qualification of these posts shall give the option for inclusion in this sub cadre. 13.1. At this stage, interpretation of Rule 27 of the Rules of 2014 is required to be made. It has been specifically provided in Rule 27 that the officers appointed/promoted and working on the above posts of this sub cadre and having the prescribed qualification of these posts shall give the option for inclusion in this sub cadre. In the present case, it is the specific stand taken by the respondent authority that the appellants were not appointed/promoted and working on the post of the sub cadre but they have been posted on deputation basis. 13.2. Rule 27 further provides that in case of having no qualification or not giving option for inclusion in this sub cadre or in case of working on deputation basis, such persons shall be reverted back to their own cadre. Thus, the appellants herein were not appointed/promoted on the posts but working on deputation basis and, therefore, as per Rule 27 of the Rules, they are required to be reverted back to their own cadre. It is the mandate of the statutory rule that requires repatriation of the persons who were working on deputation basis. From the language of Rule 27, it is evident that the rule making authority was conscious of the factual position that there were persons working on deputation basis against different posts falling in Research and Training sub cadre under the Rules and it was intentionally decided to repatriate them back to their own cadre. Now, it is the case of the appellants that though it has been written in the office order that the appellants were appointed on deputation basis, deputation allowance was not granted to them and, therefore, in fact they were posted on regular basis on the posts in question. However, we are of the view that the said contention is misconceived. Firstly, the appellants never objected before the respondent authority when they were posted on deputation basis. They never made representation for grant of deputation allowance before the concerned respondent authority. Secondly, it is also not in dispute that the competitive examination was not conducted and, therefore, merely because the appellants were possessing the requisite qualification and they undergone the training, it cannot be said that they have been appointed on regular basis on the posts in question. Secondly, it is also not in dispute that the competitive examination was not conducted and, therefore, merely because the appellants were possessing the requisite qualification and they undergone the training, it cannot be said that they have been appointed on regular basis on the posts in question. Thus, we are of the view that when the appellants have been posted on the deputation basis, Rule 27 would be applicable and, therefore, the respondent authority has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants for their regularization/absorption in Research & Training sub cadre of the Bihar Education Service. 13.3. We are further of the view that the last portion of Rule 27 would also not be applicable to the case of the appellants who were appointed on deputation basis because of the fact that the Rule itself provides that officer who is working on deputation basis, he shall be reverted back to his own cadre. Hence it is not correct on the part of the appellants to contend that though they are posted on deputation basis, they shall remain on their posts but they shall not get benefit of regular promotion in this sub cadre. Such an interpretation made by learned counsel for the appellants is also misconceived. 14. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petitions filed by the present appellants and we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while rejecting the petitions. Hence, no interference is required in the present appeals. 15. Accordingly, all these appeals stand dismissed.