SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, J. Through this Intra Court Appeal, the Appellants have assailed Judgment dated 30.03.2021 ("Impugned Judgment") passed in W.P. No.2345/2015 passed by the learned Single Judge-in- Chambers whereby the said writ petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per Memo of Appeal, are that the Appellants are female teachers who have been working under the Federal Directorate of Education Islamabad ("FDE") and claim to be eligible for permanent absorption in line with the revised policy duly approved by the Prime Minister of Pakistan through amendments in Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973. These amendments are incorporated in Rule 20A after sub-rule (3) through a notification by the Establishment Division Islamabad vide SRO No.375 (I)/2012 dated 16.04.2012. The Appellants were transferred from Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Government of Punjab, Azad Jammu & Kashmir & Khyber Agency at Jamrud on deputation basis and their services were placed under FDE but the Respondents are not considering the Appellants for absorption . Therefore, Appellants filed the Writ Petition, wherein the following prayers were made:- "Under the above said circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that the instant writ petition may please be accepted, inaction at the part of the respondent may kindly be declared illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority and respondents may please be directed to consider the petitioners for absorption/induction and the condition of excluding BPS-7 to 13 from absorption may kindly be declared illegal, unlawful and set aside.
It is further prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioners equally keeping in view the law laid down in 2005 SCMR 100 , 2009 SCMR 1 & 1996 SCMR 1 185 alongwith consequential/back benefits.
Any other relief with cost which this Honorable Court deems fit and appropriate may also be granted."
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants, inter alia, contended that the findings in the Impugned Judgment regarding Wedlock Policy and on absorption of civil servants on deputation suffers from serious legal infirmities, which call for interference by this Court in appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the legal and factual issues concerning the Wedlock Policy and the absorption of the Appellants has not been appreciated in its true and proper perspective in the Impugned Judgment.
4. On the other hand, learned AAG subm itted that the services of Appellants were taken on deputation basis; that cases of the Appellants were considered in light of judgment passed in W.P. No.194/2020 but they do not qualify for absorption in FDE. It was further submitted that the amendment made in Rule 20A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 through a notification by the Establishment Division Islamabad vide SRO No.375-(I)/2012 dated 16.04.2012 is subject to the provision in the Recruitment Rules, as such, request of the Appellants was not entertained.
5. Arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused with their able assistance.
6. It is well settled law by now that a civil servant on deputation has no vested right to stay on deputation or to seek absorption. The learned Single Judge-in -Chambers has correctly relied upon Dr. Shafi-Ur-Rehman Afridi Vs. C.D.A. Islamabad, 2010 SCMR 378 in this regard. The same view has been expressed in S. Masood Abbas Rizvi Vs. Federation of Pakistan, 2014 SCMR 799 and most recently by another learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ms. Sajida Islam Vs. Federation of Pakistan, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 135 .
7. This position has not been changed by the amendment introduced in Rule 20A of the Civil Servants Act vide SRO No. 375-(I)/2012 and as such the Appellants' reliance thereupon is misconceived. The said amendment has simply created an exemption from the normal period of deputation for, inter alia, those who may fall under the Wedlock Policy . Such exemption neither creates a vested right for one on deputation to seek absorption on the basis of the Wedlock Policy nor takes away the borrowing department's right to refuse absorption.
8. A civil servant on deputation cannot be thrust upon the borrowing department against its needs and desires. The Respondents have clearly expressed their unwillingness to absorb the Appellants, in which case this Court cannot compel them to consider the Appellants for absorption as prayed for by the Appellants in the writ petition. The Appellants' contention that they have somehow acquired a right to absorption on account of the said amendments negates the entire concept of deputation which is essentially an agreement between the lending and borrowing departments.
9. In so far as the contention that the parent department of the Appellants' has terminated their lien is concerned, the same has no force in view of a multitude of pronouncements by the Honorable Supreme Court including Chief Secretary , Government of N.W.F.P. Vs. Zafarmand Ali, 2005 SCMR 1212 ; Muhammad Israrullah Vs. Assistant Director , Manpower , 2005 SCMR 716; Executive Engineer , Provincial Building Circle, Lahore Vs. Muzaf far Bil Haq, 2000 SCMR 656; Secretary Education Vs. Viqar-ul-Haq, 2000 SCMR 1780 ; and Mazhar Ali Vs. Federation of Pakistan, 1992 SCMR 435, whereby it has been held conclusively that by operation of law, a government servant on deputation retains a lien on the permanent post in his parent office, which terminates only upon confirmation in the borrowing department.
10. Learned counsel for the Appellants has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the Impugned Judgment which would warrant interference by this Court.
11. For all the foregoing reasons we find no merit in the instant appeal and as such the same is dismissed.