Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2026

They were subsequently sent on deputation to the Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads) [PW(B&R)] Department, where they were appointed/working as Assistant Engineers/Sub-Divisional Engineers.

The Supreme Court examined the circumstances surrounding their deputation and subsequent permanent absorption in the PW(B&R) Department.

In the case of Pradeep Atri and Praveen Chaudhary, the Court found serious procedural defects in the deputation process. Their deputations were initiated largely through their own requests and, in Praveen Chaudhary's case, through recommendations of ministers who were not connected with the concerned departments.

Pradeep Atri subsequently participated in the regular recruitment process for Assistant Engineer but was unsuccessful. Nevertheless, he was later absorbed into the PW(B&R) Department against a vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment.

Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia were deputed pursuant to a departmental requisition. However, their subsequent absorption was also challenged because the authorities relied upon factors such as their qualifications, work performance and vacancies, rather than demonstrating the “special circumstances” required under Rule 10.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the deputation and absorption were bad in law and amounted to a backdoor entry, but nevertheless allowed the four officers to continue because they had served for many years and no longer had a lien in their parent department.

The matter reached the Supreme Court through several connected appeals.

The Court explained that deputation ordinarily involves a temporary assignment of an employee from the parent department to another department to meet an exigency of public service. It requires consensus between: the parent/lending department, the borrowing department, and the employee/deputationist.

A deputationist does not acquire an automatic or vested right to permanent absorption in the borrowing department unless such absorption is supported by the applicable statutory rules.

The Court found the deputation of Pradeep Atri and Praveen Chaudhary illegal, while the deputation of Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia was held to be irregular.

More importantly, the Court held that the absorption of all four officers was illegal, non-est and void because the requirements of Rule 10 were not satisfied.

The expression “special circumstances” in Rule 10 was interpreted to mean circumstances that are exceptional, unusual or beyond the ordinary course, rather than ordinary administrative vacancies or staff shortages.

The Court further rejected the High Court's approach of allowing the officers to continue merely because they had served for a long period. An appointment that is illegal from its inception cannot become legal merely because considerable time has elapsed.

The Court reaffirmed that deputation is ordinarily a temporary arrangement designed to meet an administrative or public-service requirement. It does not ordinarily sever the employee's relationship with the parent department.

A person sent on deputation does not automatically acquire a right to permanent absorption. Such absorption must have a legal foundation in the applicable rules.

Rule 10 permitted appointment by transfer only in special circumstances with Commission approval. The Court held that ordinary vacancies and staff shortages are normal administrative occurrences and therefore cannot, by themselves, satisfy the requirement of special circumstances.

The 1965 Rules prescribed 50% direct recruitment and 50% promotion as the regular modes of recruitment. The Court emphasized that appointment by transfer under Rule 10 was an exceptional mechanism and could not be employed as an alternative route to circumvent the regular recruitment process.

One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the Court's rejection of the High Court's sympathetic approach. The Supreme Court held that illegality cannot be converted into legality merely because an employee has continued in service for many years.

The Court's reasoning also operates within the constitutional framework of Articles 14 and 16, which require fairness and equality of opportunity in public employment. A backdoor appointment can undermine the rights of persons who compete through the prescribed recruitment process.

Because the Court invalidated the absorption itself and ordered repatriation, it found it unnecessary to undertake a detailed determination of the disputed seniority under Rule 12(5).