Under the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, can an officer be appointed by transfer against a vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment?

No. Rule 6 provides for only two modes of recruitment to the service — 50 percent by direct recruitment and 50 percent by promotion — so 100 percent of the vacancies are to be filled up by those two modes alone, leaving no place where an officer appointed by way of transfer can be accommodated. Rule 2(9) and Rule 9 rule out appointment by transfer as direct recruitment, and an absorption made against a resultant vacancy of the direct recruitment quota is clearly contrary to Rule 2(9) and Rule 9 of the 1965 Rules.

Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 — rr.2(9), 6, 9, 10, 12(5) — Deputation — Appointment by transfer — ‘Special circumstances’ — Illegality — Repatriation — Service jurisprudence — Deputation — Consensus of three stakeholders — No right to claim absorption — Held: Deputation requires a consensus between the parent department, the borrowing department and the officer/employee concerned, and is resorted to for exigencies of public service. Being by its very nature temporary, it gives a deputationist no right to claim absorption unless the rules of the borrowing department provide for such absorption. (¶53) 1965 Rules — r.10 — Appointment by transfer — Meaning of ‘special circumstances’ — Held further: ‘Special circumstances’ means something more than normal or routine. Accrual of vacancies in a cadre is a routine phenomenon, and shortage of officers in a department cannot be construed to be a ‘special circumstance’ warranting appointment by transfer. (¶92, 108) 1965 Rules — rr.2(9), 6, 9 — Transfer against a vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment — Held further: Rule 6 provides only two modes of recruitment, 50 percent by direct recruitment and 50 percent by promotion, and Rule 9 specifically excludes appointment by transfer. Absorption against a vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment is contrary to the 1965 Rules. (¶89) Service jurisprudence — Illegality distinct and different from irregularity — No regularization by lapse of time — Held further: Illegality is wrong right from the inception and void ab initio; it cannot be cured by lapse of time nor regularized by taking a sympathetic view on the ground of long continuance in service. Absorption quashed, repatriation directed; appeals disposed of. (¶115, 117)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of HEMANT KUMAR & ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India