Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48240 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9186 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devendra Nigam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Waseeq Uddin Ahmed Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. J.N.Mathur, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 and Mr. Waseeq Uddin Ahmed, learned counsel for opposite party no.4. 3. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.07.2025 whereby the state government has rejected proposal for extension of petitioner's deputation with the NOIDA for further period of two years. 4. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner who has a lien with the Public Works Department, U.P. Lucknow was permitted on deputation through transfer with NOIDA for a period of three years vide letter dated 13.12.2021. It is submitted that prior to the completion of the aforesaid time period, the Chief Executive Officer, Noida vide letter dated 27.11.2024 requested the Principal Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Industrial Development Government of U.P., Lucknow for extension of petitioner's deputation for a further period of two years in view of excessive work and shortage of staff. 5. It is submitted that despite such a request having been made, without adverting to same, the Public Works Department,U.P. Lucknow vide letter dated 15.04.2025 required a response from NOIDA with regard to relieving of petitioner for joining in the Public Works Department, U.P. Lucknow. 6. It is submitted that in response thereto, Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, vide letter dated 13.05.2025 reiterated the request for extension of petitioner's deputation for a further period of two years in view of the fact that NOIDA was facing a shortage of staff and in view of urgent completion of prestigious projects of the government. It is submitted that the Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D also by means of letter dated 02.12.2024 made the said recommondation for extension of petitioner’s deputation. 7. It has been further submitted that despite the relevant authorities having acceded to request for extension of deputation period of petitioner for a further period two years, impugned order has been passed by the state government in a cryptic manner without adverting to aforesaid facts rejecting the request for extension of deputation. 8. It is submitted that the impugned order clearly indicates that meeting of minds of the relevant authorities has not been considered by the relevant authority at all which would hamper the expeditious conclusion of prestigious projects of NOIDA. 9. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that although recommendations and proposals were sent to the state government for extension of deputation of petitioner for a further period of two years but the petitioner does not acquire any vested right and it is for the state government to take a final call with regard to same as has been done. 10. Learned counsel for opposite party no.4 on the basis of instructions has supported the claim of petitioner with the submissions that in case deputation period is not extended, it would hamper the smooth functioning with regard to prestegious projects which require to be concluded expeditiously. 11. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts indicated hereinabove are admitted to the extent that petitioner was sent on deputation vide order dated 03.12.2021 for a maximum period of three years or till regular appointment of an employee on the said post, which ever was earlier, was made. 12. The aforesaid fact clearly indicates that the post on which petitioner is currently employed on deputation can be filled-up by means of regualr recruitment as well, apart from deputation. Although the request sent by NOIDA as well as letter of Engineer in Chief of P.W.D clearly indicate meeting of minds with regard to extension of deputation of petitioner for a further period of two years but learned counsel for petitioner has been unable to indicate any vested right inherent in the petitioner for continuation on deputation particularly once he had accepted the terms of the letter dated 03.12.2021 clearly indicating the maximum period of deputation i.e. three years. 13. The petitioner has also not been able to indicate any specific rule of law enunciated by any constitutional court that while rejecting an application for extension of deputation, it would be incombent upon the state government to record specific reason for the same. 14. In view thereof, this Court does not find any occasion to grant any indulgence. The petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage. 15. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Shahnaz Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench