Whether a deputationist has a right to claim absorption in the borrowing department where the rules of that department do not provide for such absorption?

No. Deputation is resorted to for exigencies of public service and, at the time of deputation, there must be a consensus between the three stakeholders — the parent department, the borrowing department and the officer/employee concerned. By its very nature deputation can only be temporary, so a deputationist per se has no right to claim absorption unless the rules of the borrowing department provide for such absorption; once the exigency of public service is met he has to be repatriated back, no consent of his being required, his lien with the parent department never having been severed.

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