Rameshwar Prasad vs Managing Director U.P. Rajkiya Nirman ... on 16 September, 1999
5. Counsel for the respondent has contended before us that no discrimination has been meted out to the petitioner. He has contended that the three other persons in whose case no objection certificate for absorption has been issued by the respondent-ITBP were Constables, whereas the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on 21st October, 2000 and on his return from deputation he will be joining as Head Constable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has given undertaking that he will not claim his promotion as Head Constable with parent department, i.e. ITBP. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirmal Nigam Ltd. & Ors.. On the other hand, Mr. Sud, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India & Anr. , Supreme Court has held that a person can at any point of time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he has gone on deputation.