1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.646 OF 2010 Charanjit P. Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Bhavesh Parmar i/b Ms.Sandhya A. Mailagir, Mr.Deumani Shukla and Mr.Jatin Sheth Ms.S.V. Bharucha for respondent no.1 Mr.Ravi Shetty for respondent no.3 Ms.N.V.Masurkar with Mr.V.S.Masurkar for respondent no.4 CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J. & S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : June 21, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the decision dt.7.10.09 passed by the Hon ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai in ’ Review Petition No.13/2007. The petitioner is Central Government employee and presently working as Superintendent Service Tax, Mumbai Commissionerate. On earlier occasion, while working as an Inspector of Central Excise, the petitioner had gone on deputation to the CBI as 2 Inspector of Central Excise. On completion of his deputation, he was sent back to his parent department. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his deputation has been cancelled on a wrong premise that there were adverse reports against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner after obtaining information under the Right to Information Act that there were no such adverse reports against him while he was working with CBI on deputation, on this basis, the review petition ought to have been allowed. 4. We do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for inference as there is no error or illegality committed by Hon ble Central Administrative ’ Tribunal dismissing his review petition. 5. The petitioner has no vested right for being continued on deputation with CBI and, therefore, he cannot claim to be continued on deputation as per his choice. It appears that the petitioner has been agitating this matter time and again. The petitioner has lost his case till the Supreme Court inspite of that the petitioner has filed this review petition being fully aware that he cannot claim / insist upon being sent on deputation to CBI when the department does not want him, may be for whatsoever reason. Therefore, we dismiss the petition with a caution to the petitioner that in future he should not indulge into such frivolous litigation. 3 6. Petition is dismissed accordingly. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J