B.K. Sharma, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order by which the petitioner who is on deputation in the borrowing department has been repatriated to his parent department.
2. Briefly stated the facts material for the purpose of disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was first appointed as Instructor in the department of Industries w.e.f. 9.3.92 pursuant to Annexure-I advertisement dated 9.4.98 issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Energy Development Agency (APEDA) inviting applications for filling up two posts of Project Officer (PO) (Energy) on standard deputation terms initially for a period of two years, the petitioner offered his candidature for one such posts. Pursuant to selection etc., the petitioner was appointed as a PO under APEDA by Annexure-III order dated 4.9.2000. He was so appointed with the following terms and conditions:
Sept. 2000
ORDER
Consequent upon recommendation of the selection committee, the following Officers are hereby appointed as Project Officers under Arunachal Pradesh Energy Development Agency on transfer on standard deputation terms in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-200-10,500/per month plus other allowances as admissible in Arunachal Pradesh from time to time w.e.f. date of their joining at the place of posting. In the public service, they are posted at the places mentioned against each.
Sl. Name of Place of Whom to
No. the officers posting report
1 Shri P.S. Pandey Doimukh Director,
APEDA
2. Shri Taru Majhi Head- -do-
quarter
3. Shri B.K. Pandey Miao -do-
4. Shri Jamba Loya Pasighat -do-
5. Shri A.Q. Siddiqui Tezu -do-
The appointment on transfer on deputation is subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. The above appointment is on deputation basis only and will not confer any right on the Officer to claim for the regular absorption in the Arunachal Pradesh Energy Development Agency.
2. They will be on deputation on an initial period of 2 (two) years from the date of joining in the Arunachal Pradesh Energy Development Agency. The agency can however, curtail/extend the period of deputation as per requirement of the agency and subject to good performance during the period of deputation.
The other terms and conditions which are not specified herein shall be governed by the relevant rules and regulation and order issued by the agency from time to time. The officers are to report in headquarter, Itanagar on or before 20th September, 2000.
Sd/-Chief Secretary & ChairmanGoverning Body, PEDA,Itanagar
3. On being released by the parent department by order dated 8.9.2000, the petitioner joined the borrowing department, i.e., APEDA on 18.9.2000.
4. On completion of the initial term of deputation (two years) the parent department by their Annexure-VI letter dated 1.8.02 conveyed their no objection to the extension of the period of deputation of the petitioner. This was followed by yet another letter from the parent department (Annexure-VII) dated 4.3.04 to the borrowing department, i.e., APEDA. It is the case of the petitioner that the borrowing department did not take any decision regarding extension of deputation service of the petitioner.
5. On 20.3.03 the borrowing department, i.e., APEDA intimated the parent department that the petitioner could be repatriated in the month of September, 2003. As regards the request of the petitioner for his permanent absorption in APEDA, it was intimated that a decision in this regard would be taken by the Governing Body.
6. The Governing Body meeting was held on 17.12.03 in which a discussion was made on the agenda item No. 7 Repatriation/Extension/Absorption of POs on deputation'. It was decided that 50% of the posts of Project Officers will be filled up on promotion basis and remaining 50% will be filled up through direct recruitment/deputation. It was also decided that the existing deputationists who were interested for absorption would be considered by a Screening Committee to be headed by the Commissioner (NCER). A further decision was taken not to divert any post for the deputationists.
7. Vide item No. 8 of the meeting the proposal for absorption of one Shri O. Panyang as Information and Publicity Officer (IPO), which is altogether a different post was approved.
8. After the aforesaid development, the parent department of the petitioner by their letter dated 23.4.04 requested the borrowing department, i.e., APED A to consider the case of the petitioner along with one Shri A.K. Rana who by that time had completed about 4 years and 7 years of service on deputation respectively. The parent department also conveyed their no objection towards such absorption. However, by the impugned order dated 16.8.04 the petitioner was repatriated back to his parent department. Such repatriation was as per the decision of the screening committee and subsequent approval of the Chairman of the Government Body, APEDA. It is the legality and validity of this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. According to the petitioner his case was not considered by the borrowing department in terms of the aforesaid decision for absorption of the deputationist. The petitioner is now continuing in the borrowing department on the strength of interim order passed by this Court.
9. Two separate affidavits have been filed, one by the borrowing department and another by the parent department. The stand of the borrowing department is that mere submission of NOC by the parent department cannot bestow the petitioner with any legal right for absorption in the borrowing department. As regards absorption of said Shri O. Panyang in the post of IPO, it is the stand of the borrowing department that the said post being a solitary post, the case of the said deputationist was considered and he was the lone candidate for absorption. However, said Shri Panyang has left the borrowing department after being appointed as Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) in another department.
10. Further stand in the affidavit is that the petitioner cannot equate with that of Shri Panyang. There are altogether 10 Project Officers serving on deputation from other departments and the petitioner being one of them cannot ask any differential treatment in preference to others.
11. In paragraph-7 of the affidavit, the said respondents have stated as to how the screening committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (NCER) and the said committee after considering all the aspects of the matter decided not to absorb the petitioner. However, four others who were also considered for such absorption along with the petitioner were recommended for absorption. According to the respondents, the four officers who were recommended for absorption had completed more than five years of deputation tenure as against completion of three years by the petitioner.
12. The respondents have indicated the period of deputation in respect of the five officers serving on deputation which is reproduced below:
Sl. Name of Date of Completed tenure
No. Incumbent Joining in on 28.05.04
APEDA
1. Shri A.L. 1.5.1998 6 years
Yadav
2. Shri S.P. 1.1.1997 6 years 6 months
Verma
3. Shri D.K. 16.1.1998 6 years 4 months
Shukla
4. Shri A.K. 25.9.1997 6 years 7 months
Rana
5. Shri A.Q. 7.9.2000 3 years 7 months
Siddiqui
(petitioner)
13. The respondents have emphasized on the minimum period of deputation of 5 years and consideration of the case of the other deputationists who had completed more than five years on deputation. A significant stand has been taken in the counter affidavit referring to aforesaid minutes of discussion dated 17.12.03 in the 13th Governing Body meeting of APEDA. As per the decision arrived at 50% of the post of Project officer are to be filled up on promotion and remaining 50% through direct recruitment/deputation. It was also decided that the promotion quota would not be diverted to the deputationist. Out of 16 sanctioned posts of Project Officer, 10 posts were already occupied by deputationist and two by direct recruitment. As per the said decision of the Governing Body the promotion quota is required to be maintained by repatriating the excess number of deputationists who have already completed the deputation period. As regards the claim of the petitioner that the parent department was not intimated anything about repatriation of the petitioner, the respondents have denied the same and in paragraph 13 of the affidavit they have stated that the parent department was duly intimated by letter dated 7.4.04 that the petitioner would be repatriated back to the parent department after ongoing election process was over.
14. The lending department in their affidavit has generally admitted the factual aspect of the matter. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by APEDA. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has asserted that the screening committee acted arbitarily and unreasonably in not considering the case of the petitioner favourably.
15. I have heard Mr. R. Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Sr. State counsel appearing for the State respondents. Mr. T. Son, learned Counsel for APEDA made his submission supporting the repatriation of the petitioner.
16. Mr. Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the screening committee was not properly constituted inasmuch as the screening committee, as per the decision of the Governing Body of APEDA, was to be headed by the Commissioner (NCER), but the same was headed by the secretary (NCER) as the Chairman. According to him the screening committee could not have adopted the criteria of five years of deputation service for absorption of deputationist. He further submitted that the petitioner having had better ACRs than the persons who have been absorbed in APED A, the same has resulted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance on the two decisions of the Apex Court as reported in : AIR1999SC3443 (Rameswar Prasad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and Ors.) and : (2004)IILLJ5SC (Andhra Bank v. B. Satyanarayana and Ors.)
17. Countering the above arguments, learned Counsel for APEDA as well as Mr. B. L. Singh, learned Sr. G.A., A.P. submitted that the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to be absorbed in APEDA. They submitted that a deputationist cannot have any claim as a matter of right for absorption in the borrowing department. According to them on the basis of the criteria adopted by the respondents the case of the petitioner was considered and on the basis of such criteria he could not be absorbed. They placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as reported in 2005 (1) GLT 192 : (2005) 2 GLR 26 (M.V. Kartikeyan Nair v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors.)
18. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record. There is no dispute that the petitioner was initially deputed for a period of two years and at the time of consideration of his case by the screening committee he had rendered about 3 years and 7 months of service. The minutes of the screening committee held on 28.5.04 as has been annexed to the counter affidavit is quoted below:
Minutes of Screening Committee Meetingheld on 28.5.04
The members of the Screening Committee constituted vide No. APEDA/e-95/99-2000/Vol. 11/691-95 dated 21.5.04 for screening of project Officers on deputation to APEDA for absorption, assembled in the office chamber of the Secretary (Power & NCER) as per the schedule at 1430 hours on 28th May, 2004. The following members were present in the meeting.
1) Secretary (Power & NCER) Chairman
2) Chief Engineer (T & D) Deptt. of power Member
3) Chief Engineer (PHED) Member
4) Director (APEDA) Member
After consideration of all aspects like creation of posts under NRSE and IREP programmes during the period of RWD, performance of individual officers, tenure of stay on deputation in APEDA and correspondences with lending department etc. it was felt necessary and reasonable that all the officers on deputation from RWD and Deptt. of Industries who have opted for absorption and completed more than 5 (five) years of service tenure may be absorbed in APEDA and the officers who have not competed 5 (five) years of service may be repatriated to their parent Department. The Project Officers on deputation from other Department like PWD and Power did not opt for absorption and their cases were not discussed in the meeting.
Officers recommended for Absorption
l) Shri A.L.Yadav (RWD)
2) Shri S.P.Verma (RWD)
3) Shri D.K.Shukla (RWD)
4) Shri A.K. Rana (Industries)
Therefore, the cases of above four officers who have completed more than 5 (five) years continuous service in APEDA as Project Officer on deputation put of 9 (nine) such deputationists recommended for absorption in APEDA.
19. From the above, it will be seen that a general criteria was adopted to consider the case of those deputationists who had completed five years of service on deputation in the borrowing department. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have five years of service to his credit. The screening committee also considered all other aspects like creation of posts, performance of the officers, tenure of stay on deputation in APEDA and correspondences with the lending department. It is on the basis the four officers as mentioned in the screening committee meeting were recommended for absorption. The petitioner was not recommended for absorption by the screening committee.
20. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made two fold arguments challenging the minutes of the screening committee meeting. The first ground of attack is that the criteria adopted fixing a yardstick of five years of deputation service was unreasonable. The second ground of attack is that the screening committee having been presided over by the Secretary (NCER) contrary to the decision of the Governing Body meeting held on 17.12.03 in terms of which it is the Commissioner, (NCER) who was to preside over the screening meeting, its decision is not legally valid.
21. As regards the first ground of attack, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents were within their competence and jurisdiction to fix the criteria of five years of deputation service towards consideration of the case for absorption of deputationists. On perusal of the minutes of the meeting, it appears that the committee took into account all aspects of the matter like creation of post, performance of individual officers, tenure of stay on deputation etc. and it was on that basis the four officers were recommended and the petitioner was not recommended. In absence of any allegation of malafide and arbitrary exercise of power by the members of the screening committee, the decisions arrived at by the said committee cannot be faulted with. There is no requirement of assigning detailed reasons by the screening committee. It was sufficient to have mentioned consideration of all aspects of the matter. As per the decision of the Governing Body meeting held on 17.12.03 also there is no requirement of recording detailed reasons towards consideration of absorption of the deputationists.
22. The second ground of attack is also not equally tenable. As per the minutes of the Governing Body meeting held on 17.12.03 the screening committee was to be headed by the Commissioner (NCER). In the instant case, the committee was headed by the Secretary (NCER) as the Chairman. It was submitted by Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Sr. G.A., A.P. that at the time of screening committee meeting held on 28.5.04 there was no Commissioner (NCER). At times the Secretary of the Department also functions as Commissioner. The screening committee was not a departmental promotion committee requiring strict adherence to the formation of the committee. Apart from the Secretary (NCER) other three high officials were present in the meeting and the screening committee was constituted with them. Thus, if the non-existing Commissioner (NCER) was replaced by the Secretary (NCER) who at times also functions as Commissioner, the constitution of the screening committee cannot be said to be illegal.
23. Mr. Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the respective ACRs of the four officers who have been absorbed vis-a-vis the petitioner. I am afraid the writ Court cannot scrutinize the ACRs so as to find fault with the appreciation made by the screening committee. The view taken by the screening committee is plausible one and the criteria of five years of service on deputation also cannot be faulted with. Even in the matter of granting pensionary benefits to erstwhile employees of various departments the cut of date fixed was not interfered with by the Apex Court.
24. The above grounds of attack of the petitioner will have to be considered weighing the corresponding right of the petitioner for his absorption in the borrowing department. Law is well settled that a deputationist cannot claim as a matter of right for his absorption in the parent department. This aspect of the matter has been highlighted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. V. Kartikeyan Nair (supra). The Division Bench placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Inder Singh and Ors. reported in : (1997)8SCC372 , in which the following observation was made in paragraph 18 of the judgment:
18. The concept of 'deputation' is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. 'Deputation' has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word 'deputation' is of the held. In simple words 'deputation' means service outside the cadre or outside the parent Department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another Department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation, the employee has to come back to his parent Department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent Department as per the recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled law as we have also seen in various judgments, which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to the parent Departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be.
25. In the case of Kunal Nanda v. Union of India reported in (2000) 5 SCC 362, the Apex Court made the following observation in paragraph 6:
6. ...On the legal submissions also made there are no merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for permanent absorption in the Department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory rule, regulation or order bearing the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent Department to serve his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the Departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation….
26. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench reiterating the principles involved in absorption of deputationists, made the following observations:
15. Recruitment to service may be made by way of deputation also apart from other modes : but when it is made on deputation, it does not result in absorption in the service to which an employee is deputed unless the concerned Department decides to do so. In that sense, it is not recruitment in its true import and significance and the employee continues to be a member of parent service from where he is posted on deputation. By passing an order of deputation or putting an employee on deputation in another service, it does not confer any right to be absorbed in the deputed post and the deputationist can, therefore, be reverted to be parent cadre at any time. A deputationist may be absorbed in substantive capacity in the borrowed Department provided the borrowed Department so desires and the parent Department so agrees. In the instant case, neither the parent Department nor requisitioning Department is willing to have the petitioners absorbed permanently. The statutory rule, which is the source of right of the petitioners to be on deputation, prescribe the maximum limit of the period of deputation for three years only. The orders by which the petitioners were deputed from the parent Department is very specific that the period of deputation would not exceed beyond three years. The petitioners have lien to their respective posts in the parent Department and they can very well be repatriated back to their respective posts. The materials available on record do not disclose any infirmity or illegality in passing the orders of repatriation after expiry of the period of deputation, nor do the said orders, in any way, violate any of the provisions of the statutory rules or regulations holding the filed.
27. I now proceed to deal with the cases. In the case of V. Satyanaranan (supra), the Apex Court reiterated the well settled principles of service jurisprudence that the employer is entitled to lay down policy decision laying down the criteria for grant of promotion to its officers. The eligibility norms for such promotions must be on a realistic basis where for a system to choose the best-available talent to man the critical positions is to be devised. Once a power vests in an authority by reason of the provisions of a statute, it is trite that such power can be exercised from time to time. This decision pressed into service to buttress the argument that the policy decision taken by the borrowing department for absorption of the deputationists was not followed in its true sense, is totally misplaced. In that case the Apex Court was concerned with a particular policy decision relating to promotion and it was in that context, the aforesaid principles were reiterated.
28. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner was considered as per the decision of the Governing Body of APEDA and if the petitioner could not be absorbed upon such consideration, the petitioner cannot agitate that his case was not considered according to the decision of the Government Body, in the manner, he wanted.
29. The case Rameshwar Prasad (supra) has been pressed into service to buttress the argument that APEDA having laid down the policy decision for absorption of the deputationists, the petitioner ought to have been absorbed. In this decision, the Apex Court while recognizing the right of the borrowing department as to whether the deputationists should be absorbed in service or not is a policy matter, observed that once a policy is accepted and rules are framed for such absorption, before rejecting the application there must be justifiable reasons and the borrowing department cannot act arbitrarily by picking and choosing the deputationist for absorption. The Apex Court further recognized that the power of absorption no doubt is discretionary, but is not coupled with arbitrary or on the whims or caprices of any individual.
30. In the instant case, it is not a case of recommending the officers for absorption on pick and choose basis. It is also not the case of acting on the whims and caprices of any individual. The case of the petitioner was considered with the adopted criteria by the screening committee. Thus, this case is of no help to the case of the petitioner.
31. The petitioner came to the borrowing department on deputation with his eyes wide open to the terms and conditions of deputation. It need not be emphasized that the deputationists cannot claim as a matter of right for their absorption in the borrowing department. It is upto the borrowing department as to whether the deputationist should be absorbed or not. In the instant case the petitioner was considered for absorption but could not be recommended for such absorption on the basis of the reasons assigned by the screening committee. Such reasons cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable warranting interference with the same in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The claim made by the petitioner will have to be weighed with his corresponding right as a deputationist. If the borrowing department has taken a policy decision not to absorb the petitioner on the ground mentioned in the minutes of the screening committee and also on the ground to maintain promotion quota as reflected in the counter affidavit filed by the APEDA, no fault could be attributed to the respondents. Merely because a different view could have been taken by the screening committee, the view taken by it, which is a plausible one, cannot be interfered with.
32. For the forgoing reasons and discussions, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
33. Writ petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
34. Before parting with the case records, I place on record the following:
35. The petitioner has filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5401/05 which also pertains to his repatriation. This fact has been revealed by Mr. R. Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner had to file the said writ petition at the Principal Seat in absence of any Bench at Itanagar challenging a subsequent order by which he was released from APEDA in spite of the interim order operating in favour of the petitioner in this writ proceeding. The subsequent writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 5401/05 was entertained at the Principal Seat and was ordered to be transmitted to this Bench in view of the availability of the Bench from the next week. As submitted by Mr. Hussain such order for transmitting the case records to Itanagar Bench was set aside on a review of the order on the basis of the application purportedly filed by the High Court Registry.
36. Mr. Hussain submitted that the order for transmitting the case records to Itanagar Bench was passed by me, but the same has been set aside on a review of the order by another Single Judge (R.B. Mishra, J). It is not understood as to how such review petition could be entertained by another Single Judge (since neither I have retired nor expired) and as to what was the occasion and reason for such review by keeping the subsequent writ petition at the Principal Seat in violation of the existing standing order of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice directing transfer of both pending and future cases to Itanagar Bench and also in violation of the long standing practice of transferring cases to the Outlying Benches being followed by all other Hon'ble Judges. Even the instant writ petition initially filed at Principal Seat was transferred to this Bench (Itanagar Bench) as per order of the learned Single Judge. On all those occasions, no such review petitions were filed. The standing order No. 14 dated 21.4.2001 of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice reads as follows:
The Gauhati High Court at Guwahati Orderof the Hon'ble Chief JusticeOrder No. 14Date: 21.4.2001
The Hon'ble Chief Justice is pleased to order that all cases pertaining to Itanagar Bench at Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh, whether filed at any earlier point of time or to be filed in future at the Principal Seat for absence of Bench at Itanagar, are to be transferred to the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Naharlagun. This order will come into force with immediate effect.
By Order etc.Sd/-1. A. AnsariRegistrar General
37. When it was brought to my notice that review petitions have been filed by the High Court Registry (purportedly by Registrar, I & E) with full of distortion of facts even to the extent of suppressing the above quoted standing order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, I asked for an explanation from the Registrar, (I&E;) as follows to which there is no reply.
Registrar (I & E)
It has been brought to my notice that you have filed four review petitions in respect of four orders passed by me in the Principal Seat in four different writ petitions pertaining to Itanagar Bench casting insinuation on me. The grounds assigned in the review petitions are contrary to the established procedure and the prevalent practice of transferring the cases to outlying Benches being followed by all other Judges. In this regard, you have deliberately withheld the standing order of the then Chief Justice.
Let me know the materials on the basis of which the averments have been made in the review petitions which on the face of it are full of distortion of facts and reality. If a Judge and even the Chief Justice can not transfer the cases to outlying Benches, does it mean that the cases pertaining to outlying Benches filed in the Principal Seat, can never by transferred. When the cases were transferred on earlier occasions and are being transferred by all the Judges, why no such review petitions were filed. It appears that you are interested for retention of the four cases at Principal Seat with an oblique motive.
The way in which the matter has been dealt with and projected with distortion of facts, owes an explanation from you. If you have done the same as per the dictation of someone else by obliging him mortgaging your conscience, disclose the same. Volumes can be said. Records cannot speak lie. It gives me an impression that the entire episode is a deliberate creation with a purpose behind and to suit the situation.
Furnish your explanation with materials on the basis of which you filed the review petitions making derogatory remarks even to the extent of attributing motive. As to what should be my future course of action for unnecessarily dragging me to a non-existent issue, including the action in the judicial side, same shall be decided in due course on receipt of your explanation with materials.
Furnish your reply immediately.
B.K. SharmaJudge
38. It appears that the above standing order of the then Chief Justice was withheld towards filing and moving the review petitions for the reasons best known to the authority at whose behest the review petitions were filed. Even the counsel for the review petitioners, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. D. Senapati, Advocate, who certified the grounds of review to be good grounds and made submissions on that basis, were party to transfer of cases to Itanagar Bench from the Principal Seat on earlier occasions. Volumes can be said. Records will not speak lie. The entire episode including drafting of the review petitions is contemptuous. I am fortunate enough to read the review order which is like an appellate order with scope, ambit and jurisdiction of review concept so far unknown to me. Another interesting feature of the review order is that while issuing notice on the review petition, fixing the matter for further hearing, the order under review has been set aside.
39. Thus, the above writ petition with the interim protection not to repatriate the petitioner is pending in the Principal Seat and now in spite of dismissal of the present writ petition, the petitioner in the normal course would have continued to serve in APEDA on the strength of the interim order passed in the subsequent writ petition now kept pending at the Principal Seat by the aforesaid order on review.
40. Be that as it may, since the interim protection was provided to the petitioner in the said writ petition, now kept pending at the Principal Seat, was in view of the existing interim protection in the present writ petition, with the dismissal of the instant writ petition, the said subsequent writ petition has automatically become in fructuous and the interim protection provided in the said writ petition is of no consequence.
41. Learned Counsel for the respondents are permitted to apprise this aspect of the matter by making a mention of the pending writ petition at the Principal Seat. Learned Counsel for the petitioner may also apprise the same by bringing the matter before the appropriate Court. The interim protection provided in the said writ petition being only consequential to the interim order passed in the instant case, same will be of no consequence in view of dismissal of the instant writ petition.
42. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Principal Seat immediately for placing in the case records of W.P. (C) No. 5401/05 and also for appraisal of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
.