service rules or executive instructions has to be seen. It is trite that if a thing or act has to be done in a prescribed manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. Therefore, such deputation has to be done in accordance with such Code or instructions. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunal Nanda, referred supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.4 is wholly misplaced as in that case a deputationist desired permanent absorption in the department which was impermissible. In L/Nk V.H.K. Murthy, referred supra, there was serious charges against the deputationist who was deputed to the special protection group but was repatriated before the extendable period of six years since the special protection group felt that the retention on deputation was not in the interest of the group. In the judgment of the High Court of Kerala referred above, the facts were not similar, while in the judgment of the High Court of Delhi, the issue was that the period of notice fell short of three months and in other case too, the Court noticed that premature reversion is possible only after advance notice is given. In the said case, there were criminal cases registered against
