WP(C) 1563/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P . Pathak, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Talukdar, learned counsel re presenting the Respondent No.5. I have also heard Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Add l. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. Both the writ petitions filed by the same petitioner, pertain to transfe r and posting of the petitioner vis-à-vis the Respondent No.5. The petitioner ha s filed the first writ petition being WP(C) No.832/2011 for a direction to the o fficial respondents to make necessary arrangement for handing over and taking ov er of charge pursuant to the order dated 3.2.2011, in terms of which he was to j oin as Project Director, D.R.D.A, Nalbari. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated 14.2.2011, it was provided that till 18.2.2011, the petitioner s hould not be disturbed from present place of posting as Project Director, D.R.D. A. Nalbari. Thereafter, by order dated 18.2.2011, it was further provided that t ill the interim matter was heard and disposed of, the petitioner would continue to hold the post of Project Director, D.R.D.A., Nalbari. When the matter rested thus, the petitioner filed the second writ petiti on being WP(C) No.1563/2011 expressing apprehension of yet another transfer duri ng the pendency of the earlier writ petition. In this connection, the petitioner has made the following statements in paragraphs 14 and 18 of the writ petition :- 14. That the petitioner begs to state that the petitioner was transferred tw ice within a span of 15 days and to accommodate the Respondent No.5 as Project D irector, DRDA, Nalbari the file No.RDD.33/93 is under process to transfer the pe titioner again from the post of Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari. 18. That the petitioner begs to state that to hush up the financial irregula rities committed by the Respondent No.5 during his tenure of the Project Directo r, DRDA, Nalbari and misuse of fund of Swarnajayanti Gram Sewa Rojgar Yojana (SG SY), the Respondent No.5 is willing for the particular posting of Project Direct or, DRDA, Nalbari and as such an enquiry about delay in handing over charge to t he petitioner and the irregularities committed by the Respondent No.5 is require d to be made by the Respondent No.3 before posting the Respondent No.5 in that p articular post. Mr. P. Pathak, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.5 submits that since the Respondent No.5 was on deputation to the Panchayat & Rural Develo pment Department and his term of office is to continue upto 17.6.2011 in terms o f the notification dated 19.2.2011 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by t he Personnel (A) Department, the authorities in the Panchayat & Rural Developmen t Department could not have reverted the petitioner back to the parent departmen t. On the other hand, both Mr. J. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitione r as well as Ms R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel submit that the Respondent No.5 on reversion from Panchayat & Rural Development Department has been posted as Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri vide notification dated 19.2.2011 (Annex ure-7 to the writ petition). Prior to that, the Respondent No.5 was reverted bac k to his parent department i.e. the Personnel (A) Department by notification dat ed 3.2.2011 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Depart ment. It is this notification which the Respondent No.5 has called in question o n the ground that in view of the earlier notification issued by the Personnel De partment extending deputation period of Respondent No.5 up to 17.6.2011, the Pan chayat & Rural Development Department could not have reverted the Respondent No. 5 back to his parent department. Needless to say that the deputation is an affair between the borrowing a nd lending departments. A deputationist cannot claim as a matter of right that h e should be allowed to continue in the borrowing department. As to whether the R espondent No.5 should have been allowed to continue in the borrowing department upto 17.6.2011 or not is a matter to be decided by the authorities of the both departments. Be that as it may, as per the telephonic instructions furnished to Ms R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel (B) Department, the Respondent No.5 has already joined at Udalguri pursuant to the order of reversion to the parent department and postin g him as Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri. In view of the above, the grievance raised in the writ petitions has bee n redressed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon a reference t o the above-quoted paragraphs made in the writ petition, submits that there is s till a proposal for transfer of the petitioner to somewhere else to accommodate the Respondent No.5. If any such occasion arises, it will be open for the petit ioner to pursue such legal remedy, as may be available to him.