WP(C) 4048/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-11 order dated 8.9.2009, by which he has been repatriated w.e.f. 30.9.2009 to his parent department, which i s S.S.B. The order has been issued by the authority of the S.I.B., in which the petitioner was serving on deputation. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Sarma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. 3. The petitioner, while was serving in the parent department i.e. S.S.B., he had gone on deputation to the borrowing department i.e. the Intelligence Bure au vide order dated 1.9.2003. While continuing as such, the petitioner made repr esentation dated 3.10.2006 for his permanent absorption in the Intelligence Bure au. It appears that some correspondences were made in respect of his prayer for permanent absorption in the S.I.B. However, eventually, he was released from th e borrowing department with the direction to report for duty to the lending depa rtment. That was done by Annexure-11 order dated 8.9.2009. 4. Placing reliance on the Annexure-12 office memorandum dated 13.1.1992 is sued by the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, it is the stand of the petitioner that in terms of the provisions mad e in the said office memorandum, he is entitled to get absorption in the borrowi ng department. He has also cited some of the instances of such absorption in the borrowing department. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents No.1, 3, 7, 8 and 9, i t has been contended that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that he should be absorbed in the borrowing department. It has also been stated that there being acute shortage of man power in the S.S.B. and the petitioner being an experienced hand, the required N.O.C. could not be issued. In this connectio n, the respondents have referred to Annexure-A and B communications dated 11.8.2 008 and 7.1.2009 addressed to the Intelligence Bureau by the authority of the S. S.B. In the first communication dated 11.8.2008, dealing with the cases of absor ption of the incumbents named in the letter, which included the present petition er and one Sri Churamani Subedi, it was conveyed that no N.O.C. was in a positio n to be issued for their absorption. In the second letter dated 7.1.2009 also, i t was conveyed that the S.S.B. was facing shortage of man power due to the deplo yment of two battalions in Chhattisgarh. Accordingly, it was conveyed that the S .S.B. was not in a position to issue N.O.C. in respect of the personnel named in the communication, which included the present petitioner and said Sri Subedi. 6. While Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that th e stand of the respondents is self-contradictory inasmuch as while refusing to i ssue N.O.C. in respect of the personnel named in the said two communications, th e S.S.B. also stated in the said two communications that the process for deploym ent of their personnel was on. He has also placed reliance on two decisions of t he Apex Court reported in (1999) 8 SCC 381 (Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Managing Direct or, Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited) and the other, reported in 2002 (9) SCC 485 (Mahesh Kumar K. Parmar Vs. S.I.G.of Police) 7. In Rameswar Prasad (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with the rules framed for absorption of the deputationist in pursuance of the policy decision o f the authorities. It was held that for denial of absorption, there must be just ifiable reason without arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitu tion of India. 8. In Mahesh Kumar (supra), the Apex Court while reiterating that a deputat ionist does not have a right to seek absorption in the borrowing department as a matter of right and also while observing that the mandamus cannot be issued in such a matter without enforceable right, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in that case, suggested the Government to consider the c ase for absorption in accordance with rules subject to their suitability. 9. Unlike the aforesaid cases, in the instant case, the lending department i.e. the S.S.B. has justified repatriation of the petitioner to the parent depar tment on the ground of lack of man power and requirement of the experienced hand . By now, it is will settled that a deputationist cannot claim as a matter of ri ght that he must be absorbed in the borrowing department irrespective of require ment of his service in the lending department. 10. We have noticed the case of Churamani Subedi, who had also prayed for ab sorption in the borrowing department. The departmental remedy pursued for absorp tion having not yielded any result, he had approached this Court by filing the w rit petition being WP(C) No.191/2010 urging the same ground. As in the instant w rit petition, in the said writ petition also, the respondents had shown requirem ent of service of the petitioner and also lack of man power. This Court consider ing the materials on record, dismissed the writ petition by judgment and order d ated 4.8.2010. 11. Mr. R. Sarma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submits that the issue having already decided by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and ord er, the instant writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 12. Since the facts and circumstances involved in both the writ petitions ar e similar and the writ petition filed by the colleague of the petitioner has bee n dismissed by this Court vide its aforesaid judgment and order dated 4.8.2010 a nd even otherwise also, having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to absorb the petitione r in the borrowing department. It will be pertinent to mention here that pursuan t to the impugned order dated 8.9.2009, the petitioner stood already repatriated to the parent department and at this stage, there is no question of issuing any direction for his absorption in the parent department. 13. Writ petition is dismissed.