WP(C) 620/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Sri N.Dutta, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri K.Das, learned Standing Counsel, B.T.C. appearing for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Also heard Sri BJ Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, Assam, who has appeared on beh alf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though it is not clear as to whether the Respondent No.5 has been served , as the order that is contemplated to be passed would not in any way be advers e to the Respondent No.5, the Court finds no impediment in disposing of the writ petition at the admission stage. The petitioner, who was appointed as an Agricultural Extension Officer in the Ir rigation Department of the Government of Assam on 31.7.1997 was posted/sent on d eputation to the Panchayat & Rural Development Department (hereinafter referred to as the P & RD Department). This was by an order dated 14.3.2001. While in th e P & RD Department the petitioner was allowed to hold charge of the post of Sen ior Block Development Officer, Dotma Development Block in addition to his own du ties by an order dated 18.1.2002. The claim made in the writ petition is for a d irection to the State Respondents to treat the petitioner as being absorbed in t he P & RD Department by virtue of the Notification dated 19.7.1997, which has be en enclosed as Annexure-E to the writ petition. By the aforesaid notification it has been stipulated that the maximum period of deputation will be for a period of 5(five) years after which a deputed incumbent is to revert to his parent depa rtment failing which it is to be understood that such an incumbent has been per manently absorbed in the deputed organization/department. In the writ petition f iled, an order dated 29.1.2007 (Annexure-H to the writ petition), by which the R espondent No.5 has been posted as the Block Development Officer, Dotma Developme nt Block in place of the petitioner, has also been questioned. The State Respondents have filed an affidavit wherein in paragraph 4 it has been contended that though the petitioner, by order dated 14.3.2001, was posted/depu ted to the P & RD Department from the Irrigation Department, the said deputation is not covered by the Notification dated 19.7.1997 which speaks of deputation o f State Government Employees either to the Central Government or other State Go vernments or incorporated bodies under the State/Central Governments. In other w ords, it has been contended by the Respondents that the posting of a Government Servant from one department to another under the same State Government is not co vered by the Notification dated 19.7.1997 so as to confer on the deputed employ ee a right to claim permanent absorption in the department to which he is depute d on the expiry of 5(five) years. In so far as the posting of the Respondent No. 5 against the post held by the petitioner, i.e., Block Development Officer, Dotm a Development Block as made by order dated 19.1.2007 is concerned, the Responde nts have stated, in the affidavit filed, that the petitioner cannot be understoo d to have any right to hold the said post of Block Development Officer. I have read and considered the terms of the Government Notification dated 19.7.1 997, which has been enclosed as Annexure-E to the writ petition. The said notifi cation makes it abundantly clear that the deputation of a State Government emplo yee to the Central Government or other State Government or incorporated bodies i s what is visualized and contemplated by the said Notification. The deemed absor ption, after expiry of 5(five) years on deputation, as contemplated by the Notif ication dated 19.7.1997, therefore, has to be understood in the context of a dep utation contemplated by the Notification dated 19.7.1997. In the present case th e petitioner was earlier an employee of the Irrigation Department. By order date d 14.3.2001 his services as an Agricultural Extension Officer was lent to the P & RD Department. He was thereafter allowed to hold the charge of the Office of t he Senior Block Development officer, Dotma Development Block, in addition to his own duties, by the order dated 18.1.2002. In this manner the petitioner has con tinued to work in the P & RD Department till date. The lending of the services o f the petitioner by the Irrigation to the P & RD Department of the State of Assa m, though is a kind of deputation, yet, it will not be covered by the Office M emorandum dated 19.7.1997. If that be so, the petitioner cannot be understood to have any vested right of deemed absorption in the P & RD Department on completi on of 5(five) years of service in the said department. On the strength of the No tification dated 19.7.1997. The relevant Fundamental Rules, i.e., FR 14(a) read with the provisions contained in FR 109 to 127 also not having provided for any deemed absorption, the claims made to the above effect are not legally sustainab le. The services of the petitioner having been lent to the P & RD Department and he having been allowed to discharge his duties as an Agricultural Extension Office r in the P & RD Department in addition to holding charge of the post of Senior B lock Development Officer, the petitioner cannot be understood to have any legal right to continue to hold the post of Senior Block Development Officer, as claim ed by him. In the above situation, the Court cannot find any fault with the orde r dated 29.1.2007 by which the Respondent No.5 has been allowed to hold charge o f the said post of Senior Block Development Officer. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the Court cannot hold that the claim of the petitioner for permanent absorption in the P & RD Department would be cov ered by the Office Memorandum dated 19.7.1997 so as to warrant the view that th e Respondents should be directed to treat the petitioner as being deemed to be a bsorbed in the P & RD Department. However, as the petitioner has continued to re main in the P & RD Department since the year 2001 and over 6(six) years have ela psed in the meantime, if the petitioner so desires and files an application for regular absorption, such application will receive the due and appropriate consid eration of the authorities in accordance with law Beyond the above no order can be visualized in the writ petition. Writ petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the above directions.