- (1.) FIVE (Writ Petitioners) appellants, who were on deputation from 1. 3. 1985 serving as vigilance watches under the first respondent. are originally of (he provincial police farce. The deputation was initially for 3 years, but the appellants continued on de facto deputation from 1. 3. 1988 for about a year and a half; the request of the second respondent, who the secretary of the Port, made, a little belated though it was, to the Home deapartment (Police) (Paper Book. p. 33) on 17. 9. 88, for extension of the appellants" period of deputation by a further year from 1. 3. 88 did not produce the desired result. Instead, on the order of the Chairman, Port, another request as made and granted: this was the conditional release, by Order of the governor, permitting the appellants (o be absorbed permanently in the Port service. One of these release Orders dated 5. 11. 88 is at p. 31 of the paper book, and the other is referred to in the letter of the-third respondent, who is the chief Vigilance Officer) dated 5. 8. 88 (P. 129 ). The appellants wanted to be absorbed in port service and made written requests to the third respondent to that effect (Pp. 121-128 ).
(2.) ON the brink of permanent absorption, the appellants were repatriated. Why ? The third respondent has given two reasons - (i) no extension Order of deputation came on expiry of 1. 3. 88; (ii) in view of the appellants' present performance, they are not suitable; letter of 11. 9. 89 at p. 89. The second respondent's communication of 29. 8. 89 (p. 35) contains no reasons for repatriation. There is no repatriation sought for by the Chairman himself, who initiated the absorption possibility.
(3.) ON 5. 10. 89 the writ failed in limine in the Court below but we have looked into the affidavit of the first three respondents filed in the appeal Court stay proceedings. The fourth respondent, the State of West Bengal, has filed no affidavit, but has stated through counsel that the appellants were released for the express purpose of absorption in the Port services. By two protective orders of the appeal Court, dated 5. 10. 89 and 27. 2. 90. , (he port authorities have been directed to keep five ports of vigilance watchers vacant and the appellants have been permitted to join police duty without prejudice.;