ORDER : By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent authorities whereby his candidature for absorption on the post of Head Constable (Nursing Assistant) has not even been considered despite his giving willingness and irrevocable option for his absorption and is also challenging the order dated 30.1.2015 (Annexure P/5) repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Border Security Force (BSF) and vide order dated 11.10.2011 (Annexure P/1) he was appointed on deputation by respondent No.3 on the post of Head Constable (Nursing Assistant) {in short “HC (NA)”} at the hospital of 45 Battalion, BSF, Mulla Camp, Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker. For filling up the post of HC (NA) from amongst the HC/Constables by deputation/absorption in light of Standard Operating Procedure dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure P/3), respondent No.3 issued an order on 9.9.2014 (Annexure P/2) and sought willingness and irrevocable option from the HC (NA) who are working on deputation and willing to be permanently absorbed on the post of HC (NA). The petitioner was having requisite qualification and was working as HC (NA) on deputation since 2011, hence he submitted his willingness and irrevocable option for being permanently absorbed on the said post. However, when the absorption order dated 30.1.2015 (Annexure P/4) was issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner’s name was not there and thereafter, another order was issued by respondent No.3 on the same day i.e. 30.1.2015 whereby the petitioner was repatriated to his parent cadre as Constable (GD) vide Annexure P/5. The petitioner submitted a representation against non-consideration of his candidature for absorption on 3.2.2015 (Annexure P/6) before respondent No.2 which is still pending. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for permanent absorption to the post of Head Constable (Nursing Assistant). 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent’s authorities absorb the service of the petitioner in the post of Head Constable (Nursing Assistant). 10.3 That, this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to quash the repatriation order dated 30/01/15 (Annexure P/5). 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent’s authorities absorb the service of the petitioner in the post of Head Constable (Nursing Assistant). 10.3 That, this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to quash the repatriation order dated 30/01/15 (Annexure P/5). 10.4 That, this Honourable court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to decide the representation (Annexure P/6) pending before him. 10.5 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has given his willingness and irrevocable option as per requirement of the respondents for permanent absorption on the post of HC (NA), but his candidature was not considered which appears from the list Appendix A attached to the absorption order dated 30.1.2015, which is a list of candidates who gave their willingness and irrevocable option for permanent absorption whereas the other candidates were absorbed on the said post. The petitioner has a good experience over the post of HC (NA) which was served by him on deputation and has a good performance without any adverse remark, even then he was not absorbed on the said post which is per se illegal and arbitrary. The committee did not even consider the case of the petitioner for the reason best known to it, for his absorption on the post of HC (NA) and the impugned order dated 30.1.2015 was passed repatriating him to his parent department, which is wholly illegal. The petitioner has made a representation against the same on 3.2.2015 (Annexure P/6) to respondent No.2 which is still pending. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondent No.2 be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and absorb him on the post of HC (NA). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the relief sought for by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner is challenging the repatriation order dated 30.1.2015 (Annexure P/5) issued by the Medical Directorate, DG, BSF, New Delhi. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the relief sought for by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner is challenging the repatriation order dated 30.1.2015 (Annexure P/5) issued by the Medical Directorate, DG, BSF, New Delhi. A bare perusal of the events mentioned in the petition, it is crystal clear that no cause of action arose to the petitioner or no fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as such the present petition is not maintainable before this Court and it is liable to be dismissed. 5. It is submitted that BSF Combatised Para-Medical Staff Recruitment Rules, 2013 has been notified by the Government of India in the official gazette vide GSR-37(E) dated 16th January, 2013 wherein the mode of recruitment to the post of HC (NA) is prescribed as “by deputation/absorption”. As such, Force Headquarter (Medical Directorate), New Delhi vide order dated 9th September, 2014 has issued instructions to obtain willingness of the HC (NA) already on deputation in BSF Para Medical Setup who have completed or completing the prescribed deputation period of three years along with irrevocable option through notarized affidavit on a non-judicial paper for their absorption on the post of HC (NA) in BSF Para Medical Setup in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 plus grade pay of Rs.2400/-. The Medical Directorate, DG, BSF, New Delhi vide order dated 9th September, 2014 further directed that HCs (NA) who were selected on deputation will be considered for absorption in BSF Para Medical Setup according to their work performance report/recommendation on the format attached as per Appendix ‘B’ of the said order and further directed that Inspectors General of Frontiers of BSF will detail a Board of Officer as per composition prescribed in BSF Combatised Para Medical Staff Recruitment Rules, 2013 for absorption of suitable personnel on the post of HC (NA). Accordingly, the Selection Committee i.e. Board of Officers examined the work performance report of Unit Medical Officer, recommendation of Head of Office together with other documents for consideration of the case of the petitioner for his absorption in BSF Para Medical Setup as HC (NA). Accordingly, the Selection Committee i.e. Board of Officers examined the work performance report of Unit Medical Officer, recommendation of Head of Office together with other documents for consideration of the case of the petitioner for his absorption in BSF Para Medical Setup as HC (NA). The Unit Medical Officer submitted the work performance report of the petitioner as average and Head of Office i.e. Commandant, 45 Battalion, BSF, in his recommendation has also not recommended the case of the petitioner for permanent absorption due to the reason that he lacks attitude and his professional knowledge is not satisfactory. 6. The case of the petitioner for absorption in BSF Para Medical Setup was duly considered by the Selection Committee i.e. Board of Officers and after due consideration, his case was not recommended for absorption. Accordingly, Medical Directorate, DG, BSF, New Delhi on 30th January, 2015 issued an order for repatriation of the petitioner to his parent GD cadre with effect from 31st January, 2015 (AN). As being a deputationist, the petitioner has no right for absorption in the borrowing cadre and his case for absorption was duly considered and rejected by the competent authorities due to his unsatisfactory performance. Hence the instant petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Alchemist Ltd. and another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and others, (2007) 11 SCC 335 and Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 329 . 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in BSF and vide order dated 11.10.2011 he was appointed on deputation on the post of HC (NA) at hospital of 45 Battalion, BSF, Mulla Camp, Bhanupratappur. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 issued an order on 9.9.2014 stating that recruitment to the post of HC (NA) is to be made from amongst the Head Constables/Constables by deputation/absorption in the light of Standard Operating Procedure dated 15.9.2010 and invited willingness and irrevocable option from the HC (NA) who are working on deputation. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 issued an order on 9.9.2014 stating that recruitment to the post of HC (NA) is to be made from amongst the Head Constables/Constables by deputation/absorption in the light of Standard Operating Procedure dated 15.9.2010 and invited willingness and irrevocable option from the HC (NA) who are working on deputation. The petitioner also submitted his willingness for being permanently absorbed on the post of HC (NA) and in the order dated 30.1.2015 names of 352 candidates, excluding the petitioner, were mentioned who were absorbed on the said post. Thereafter, on the same day, another order was issued repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. 9. The main ground raised in this petition by the petitioner is that he has a good experience over the post of HC (NA) which was served by him on deputation and has a good performance without any adverse remark, even then he was not considered by the Committee and not absorbed on the post of HC (NA), which is arbitrary and illegal. According to the respondents, the petitioner’s name was duly considered for absorption but the Unit Medical Officer submitted the work performance report of the petitioner as average and Head of the Office i.e. Commandant, 45 Battalion, BSF in his recommendation also not recommended the petitioner’s case for permanent absorption due to the reason that he lacks attitude and his professional knowledge is not satisfactory. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) has held in para 16 of its judgment as under: “16. Regard being had to the discussion made hereinabove, there cannot be any doubt, that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondent within the territorial limit of the Court’s jurisdiction.” 11. In various judgments, such as in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru University Vs. Dr. KS Jaswatkar and others, AIR 1989 SC 1577 ; State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others, (1997) 8 SCC 372 ; Kunal Nanda Vs. In various judgments, such as in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru University Vs. Dr. KS Jaswatkar and others, AIR 1989 SC 1577 ; State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others, (1997) 8 SCC 372 ; Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and another, (2000) 5 SCC 362 ; Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Vs. P. K. Bhatnagar and others, (2007) 14 SCC 498 and State of Bihar and another Vs. Sunny Prakash and others, (2013) 3 SCC 559 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a deputationist does not have any right to continue on the deputed post. He can be repatriated back to his parent department and no legally enforcable right accrues to the deputationist to continue on the deputed post. 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, it is evident that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the respondent authorities for absorption on the post of HC (NA) but due to his performance and professional knowledge being not satisfactory, he was not absorbed on the said post and repatriated to his parent department. Though the petitioner has made a representation against the same to respondent No.2 but that does not create a right to the petitioner to claim absorption by way of writ jurisdiction. Therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.