Law United
Menu
Log inJoin Law United
REPORTABLE JUDGMENT · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

Supreme Court Quashes Illegal Absorption of Four Haryana Engineers, Orders Repatriation

The Supreme Court ruled that four engineers from Haryana’s Development and Panchayat Department could not remain permanently absorbed in the State’s PW(B&R) Department after a process marked by rule violations and politi…

Judgment library
LAW UNITED · SUPREME COURT DESKREPORTABLE

2026-08-18 — Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Published 21 August 202617 min readAutomatically processed

The Supreme Court ruled that four engineers from Haryana’s Development and Panchayat Department could not remain permanently absorbed in the State’s PW(B&R) Department after a process marked by rule violations and political interference. It classified two deputations as illegal and two as irregular, invalidated every absorption and ordered all four officers back to their parent cadre.

CASE DETAILS

CaseHemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana
Neutral citation2026 INSC 878
Case numbersCivil Appeal Nos. 10930-10931 of 2026, SLP (C) Nos. 12017-12018 of 2023, SLP (C) Nos. 7597-7600 of 2023, SLP (C) Nos. 7506-7508 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 8142 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 8004 of 2023, SLP (C) Nos. 20961-20967 of 2024, SLP (C) Nos. 19938-19941 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 18809 of 2023
Diary numbersDiary No. 15281 of 2023
Judgment date2026-08-18
CourtSupreme Court of India
JurisdictionCivil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case typeBatch of civil appeals arising out of special leave petitions in a service-law dispute
PlaceNew Delhi
DispositionThe Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s protection of continued service, quashed all four absorptions as illegal and void, ordered repatriation to the Development and Panchayat Department, and directed restoration of parent-cadre seniority immediately above each officer’s former juniors.

BENCH

Coram: Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. Opinion authored by: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HELD

  • The Supreme Court held that the absorption of Pradeep Atri, Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia in the PW(B&R) Department was illegal, non est and void, and it set the absorption orders aside. [1] [3] (paras 116-117; PDF pp. 149-150)
  • The Court classified the deputations of Pradeep Atri and Praveen Chaudhary as illegal, while treating the deputations of Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia as irregular rather than illegal. [1] (paras 116-117; PDF pp. 149-150)
  • Routine vacancies, staff shortage, recruitment delay, possession of an M.Tech. degree, satisfactory work or the prospect of becoming junior on return were not “special circumstances” under Rule 10; appointment by transfer was reserved for an exceptional public-service exigency that could not await ordinary recruitment. [1] (paras 92, 108-109; PDF pp. 133-143)
  • The Court agreed that political intervention and favouritism had materially infected the process and held that the four absorptions were the product of political machination. [1] (paras 112-113; PDF pp. 145-146)
  • The High Court could not preserve appointments it had found illegal merely because the officers had served for many years or would face hardship; an illegality that is void from inception cannot be cured by lapse of time or judicial sympathy. [1] (paras 114-115; PDF pp. 146-148)
  • Once the illegal absorptions were terminated, the officers’ lien in their substantive parent-cadre posts would revive; they were therefore ordered back to the Development and Panchayat Department with their parent-cadre seniority restored immediately above those who had formerly been junior to them. [1] (paras 115.1, 117; PDF pp. 148-150)

BACKGROUND

  • Pradeep Atri was recruited in December 2004, and Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia were recruited in October 2005, as Sub-Divisional Officers (Panchayati Raj) in the Development and Panchayat Department; each appointment carried a two-year probation condition. [1] (paras 14, 15; PDF pp. 12-19)
  • While still on probation, Pradeep Atri personally sought deputation to the PW(B&R) Department, joined it in November 2005 as a stop-gap deputationist, asked for absorption after about three months and was absorbed in October 2006 against a direct-recruit quota vacancy, subject initially to commission approval. [1] (paras 14.1-14.15; PDF pp. 13-18)
  • Praveen Chaudhary’s deputation followed recommendations from the Revenue Minister and Transport Minister shortly after his appointment. Although his deputation terms expressly denied any right to absorption and permitted repatriation when direct recruits became available, he was absorbed in July 2007 against a direct-recruit vacancy. [1] (paras 15.1-15.14, 64-65, 94-97; PDF pp. 19-27, 116-137)
  • Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia entered the PW(B&R) Department in January 2008 through a requisition for ten deputationists. They sought permanent absorption soon afterwards and were absorbed in October 2009 against direct-recruit vacancies despite departmental objections and political endorsements recorded in the file. [1] (paras 67-68, 100-111; PDF pp. 119-145)
  • Pradeep Atri, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia participated in the 2006 open recruitment for the same engineering cadre but were not selected; Praveen Chaudhary did not participate in that recruitment. [1] (paras 66; PDF pp. 118-119)
  • Successive seniority orders and lists placed one or more of the absorbed officers above engineers selected through open recruitment, and the officers later received promotions while disputes over absorption and inter se seniority continued. [1] (paras 17.17-17.23, 22-33; PDF pp. 38-50)
  • The Development and Panchayat Department stated in 2011 that the officers’ lien had not been retained there after their absorption in the PW(B&R) Department. [1] (paras 19; PDF pp. 44)

Procedural history

  • From 2010 onward, the absorbed officers challenged adverse seniority conditions while direct recruits filed writ petitions attacking the deputations, absorptions, seniority lists and consequential promotions; nine writ petitions were ultimately heard together. [1] (paras 18-34; PDF pp. 42-51)
  • By a common judgment dated 15 March 2023, the High Court held that the deputations and absorptions lacked justification, violated the 1965 Rules and reflected backdoor entry and political machination, but it declined to disturb the officers’ continued service because of their long tenure and the stated loss of lien; it instead restricted their seniority. [1] (paras 34.1; PDF pp. 51-53)
  • Direct recruits, the four absorbed officers and the State of Haryana filed rival special leave petitions against different parts of the common High Court judgment, and the Supreme Court heard the resulting civil appeals together. [1] [2] (paras 2, 6-13; PDF pp. 2-12)
  • A connected appeal also arose from the High Court’s 17 July 2023 dismissal of COCP No. 1519 of 2023, in which direct recruits had alleged disobedience of the common judgment while the parties’ special leave petitions were pending. [1] (paras 13.1-13.1.2; PDF pp. 11-12)

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

  • Whether the deputation of the four Development and Panchayat Department officers to the PW(B&R) Department was legal, valid and justified. [1] (paras 44(i); PDF pp. 97-98)
  • Whether the subsequent absorption of the four deputationists as Assistant Engineers/Sub-Divisional Engineers in the PW(B&R) Department was legal, valid and justified. [1] (paras 44(ii); PDF pp. 97-98)
  • If the deputations and absorptions were valid, whether the seniority assigned by the State or recast by the High Court was lawful; after invalidating all four absorptions, the Court found it unnecessary to decide that issue. [1] (paras 44(iii), 116; PDF pp. 97-98, 149-150)

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

Direct-recruit challengers

Hemant Kumar & Ors., Direct recruits from the 2006/2007 and 2009 batches

  • The direct recruits submitted that once the High Court found the deputations and absorptions illegal, backdoor and politically influenced, Article 226 did not permit it to preserve those appointments on sympathy; the officers had to be repatriated or their illegal absorption terminated. [1] (paras 35-35.11, 40-42.2; PDF pp. 53-59, 89-97)
  • They argued that public employment must satisfy Articles 14 and 16 through a fair and transparent process, whereas three officers failed the open examination for the same post and the fourth did not apply, making the later absorptions an impermissible route to achieve indirectly what could not be achieved directly. [1] (paras 35.2-35.4, 40.1-40.2; PDF pp. 54-56, 89-90)
  • They contended that Rule 6 allowed regular recruitment only through direct recruitment and promotion, that no genuine “special circumstances” justified Rule 10 transfers, and that illegal entrants could not receive a seniority advantage over regularly selected engineers. [1] (paras 35.8-35.10, 40.4-41.4; PDF pp. 57-58, 91-95)
Pradeep Atri

Pradeep Atri

  • Pradeep Atri argued that his deputation and absorption were considered administrative decisions taken after consultation with the commissions, without political endorsement, and that acute staff shortage, stalled recruitment, his qualifications and unblemished work supplied the “special circumstances” required by Rule 10. [1] (paras 36-36.1, 36.6-36.8; PDF pp. 59-64)
  • He further argued that Rule 12 tied seniority to appointment, that his October 2006 absorption preceded the direct recruits’ appointments, and that they could not receive seniority from a date before entering the cadre. [1] (paras 36.2-36.5, 36.9-36.10; PDF pp. 60-65)
Praveen Chaudhary

Praveen Chaudhary

  • Praveen Chaudhary argued that appointment by transfer was expressly recognised by Rules 2, 7 and 10, and that the exceptionally high vacancy position, long absence of direct recruitment, pending litigation and commission concurrence justified his deputation and absorption. [1] (paras 37-37.6; PDF pp. 65-69)
  • He also invoked delay and laches against the later challenges and argued that the Government, rather than the courts, had primary discretion to determine whether special circumstances warranted absorption. [1] (paras 37.7-37.10; PDF pp. 69-71)
  • On seniority, he relied on Rule 12(5) and its proviso to claim credit for equivalent prior service and to challenge administrative conditions that placed him below later direct recruits. [1] (paras 37.11-37.16; PDF pp. 71-77)
Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia

Pankaj Gaur, Arun Bhatia

  • Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia submitted that Rule 10 created a valid third route of appointment by transfer and that their M.Tech. qualifications, proper original recruitment and satisfactory performance constituted special circumstances. [1] (paras 38-38.1; PDF pp. 77-79)
  • They argued that Rule 12(5) permitted the Government to give credit for previous equivalent service and to assign seniority from an earlier date in the interest of public service. [1] (paras 38.2-38.5; PDF pp. 79-81)
  • They distinguished their cases as requisition-based deputations involving ten officers, asserted prior commission approval and completion of probation, denied that political recommendations controlled the decision, and argued that mala fides had not been properly pleaded against the relevant public functionaries. [1] (paras 38.6-38.9; PDF pp. 81-85)
State of Haryana

State of Haryana

  • The State defended the deputations and absorptions on the ground that acute vacancies and work requirements were special circumstances under Rule 10 and that the Haryana Public Service Commission had concurred. [1] (paras 39, 39.3; PDF pp. 85-87)
  • It argued that seniority had been lawfully fixed under Rule 12 and that direct recruits could not receive notional seniority before they entered the service. [1] (paras 39.1-39.3, 39.5; PDF pp. 85-88)
  • The State maintained that letters from ministers or legislators did not determine the competent authority’s decision and therefore did not establish political influence. [1] (paras 39.4; PDF pp. 87)

COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING

Statutory framework under the 1965 Rules

  • The 1965 Rules, adopted by Haryana under Article 309, defined the engineering service and confined ordinary recruitment under Rule 6 to a 50:50 division between direct recruitment and promotion. [1] (paras 46-46.5; PDF pp. 98-100)
  • Rule 6(3) separately authorised short stop-gap promotions until direct recruits became available or for six months, while Rule 10 permitted appointment by transfer only in special circumstances and with commission approval. [1] (paras 46.5.1-46.7; PDF pp. 100-102)
  • Rule 12 governed seniority, including a limited discretion for transferees, but the Court treated seniority as a downstream issue that arose only if the entry by deputation and absorption was lawful. [1] (paras 46.9, 90, 116; PDF pp. 102-103, 131, 149-150)

Nature of deputation and appointment by transfer

  • The Court distinguished an ordinary transfer within a cadre from appointment by transfer as a method of recruitment to a different service. [1] (paras 47-48; PDF pp. 103-104)
  • Drawing on established service-law precedents, it described deputation as a temporary arrangement outside the parent cadre, undertaken for a public-service exigency through the consent of the lending department, borrowing department and employee. [1] (paras 49-50, 52-53; PDF pp. 104-111)
  • A deputationist has no vested right to remain with the borrowing department or to be absorbed unless a binding rule authorises absorption; once the temporary need ends, repatriation follows and the parent relationship ordinarily remains intact. [1] (paras 51-53; PDF pp. 107-111)

Legality of the four deputations

  • Pradeep Atri initiated his own deputation while on probation, directly approached the borrowing department, bypassed the parent department and entered without separately issued deputation terms; the Court found the process alien to lawful deputation and unsustainable. [1] (paras 55-59.1, 70-73; PDF pp. 111-122)
  • Praveen Chaudhary’s deputation was initiated by two ministers outside the concerned departments, after which the asserted departmental need was generated; the Court treated this as service indiscipline, gross political interference and manifest illegality. [1] (paras 61-65.1, 74-78; PDF pp. 114-125)
  • Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia entered through an actual requisition involving ten officers, so their cases stood on a better footing; nevertheless, ordinary vacancies could have been met through Rule 6(3), making their deputations faulty and irregular. [1] (paras 67-68, 79-81; PDF pp. 119-127)

Why the absorptions failed under Rule 10

  • Appointment by transfer was not one of the two ordinary Rule 6 recruitment streams and could not be fitted into a vacancy reserved for direct recruitment, because Rules 2(9) and 9 expressly excluded transfer from direct appointment. [1] (paras 89; PDF pp. 130-131)
  • The Court interpreted “special circumstances” as something exceptional and out of the ordinary—such as an urgent project requiring specialised skill—not the routine accrual of vacancies or ordinary recruitment delay. [1] (paras 92, 108-109; PDF pp. 133-143)
  • The ongoing recruitment for 44 posts and the stop-gap promotion mechanism under Rule 6(3) defeated the argument that staff shortage or pending recruitment litigation justified Pradeep Atri’s transfer absorption. [1] (paras 83-93; PDF pp. 128-135)
  • Pradeep Atri had not completed probation, had failed the open recruitment for the same post and was absorbed against the direct quota without special circumstances; the Court characterised the result as an illegal backdoor entry. [1] (paras 92-93; PDF pp. 133-135)
  • Praveen Chaudhary’s absorption carried the same rule violations and was additionally marked by political intervention, notwithstanding the deputation condition that he would have no absorption claim; it was therefore wholly illegal. [1] (paras 94-99; PDF pp. 135-138)
  • For Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia, M.Tech. degrees, satisfactory work, regular recruitment to the parent service and possible junior placement on return were normal attributes, not special circumstances; the file also showed departmental objections and political intervention. [1] (paras 100-112; PDF pp. 138-146)
  • The Court accordingly upheld the High Court’s conclusion that all four absorptions were contrary to Rule 10 and invalid in law. [1] (paras 113; PDF pp. 146)

Judicial sympathy could not preserve an illegality

  • The High Court had found the entries unlawful but nevertheless protected continued service because of long tenure and perceived hardship; the Supreme Court held that this was a grave legal error. [1] (paras 114-115; PDF pp. 146-148)
  • An appointment made in breach of the governing rules is an illegality from inception, not a curable irregularity, and cannot be made valid by absorption, passage of time or sympathy; the Constitution Bench ruling in Umadevi supplied the controlling principle. [1] (paras 115; PDF pp. 147-148)
  • Loss of lien did not justify preservation of the illegal absorptions because setting them aside and repatriating the officers would revive their substantive lien in the parent department. [1] (paras 115.1; PDF pp. 148-149)

RATIO DECIDENDI

  • A lawful deputation is temporary, must answer a genuine public-service exigency and ordinarily rests on consensus among the lending department, borrowing department and employee; it does not by itself create a right to absorption. [1] (paras 49-53; PDF pp. 104-111)
  • Rule 10 appointment by transfer is an exceptional route that requires commission approval and circumstances materially beyond routine vacancies or administrative delay; ordinary staff shortage does not satisfy that threshold. [1] (paras 46.7, 92, 108-109; PDF pp. 101-102, 133-143)
  • An appointment by transfer cannot be charged against the direct-recruit quota when the governing rules reserve the entire cadre for direct recruitment and promotion and expressly exclude transfer from direct appointment. [1] (paras 89; PDF pp. 130-131)
  • An appointment that contravenes the governing service rules is an incurable illegality, distinct from a procedural irregularity, and cannot be regularised through long continuance, absorption or judicial sympathy. [1] (paras 115-116; PDF pp. 147-150)
  • When an illegal absorption into a borrowing cadre is set aside and the employee is repatriated, the substantive lien in the parent cadre revives and the parent authority must restore the employee’s lawful cadre placement. [1] (paras 115.1, 117; PDF pp. 148-150)

OBITER / IMPORTANT CASE-SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS

No freestanding material obiter was identified. The following are fact-specific judicial observations that illuminate the Court’s assessment but are not presented as independent rules of decision.

  • The Court said that blatant political interference and favouritism in service appointments could not be countenanced and described the absorption process as political machination. [1] (paras 112-113; PDF pp. 145-146)
  • It treated a probationary officer’s direct solicitation of another department or of unrelated ministers for deputation as service indiscipline and as evidence that the asserted administrative need was constructed after the fact. [1] (paras 56.1, 61, 70, 75-77; PDF pp. 112-125)

FINAL RULING AND DIRECTIONS

  • The absorption of Pradeep Atri, Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia in the PW(B&R) Department was set aside and quashed as illegal, non est and void. [1] (paras 117; PDF pp. 150)
  • The four officers were directed to be repatriated to the Development and Panchayat Department, Government of Haryana. [1] (paras 117; PDF pp. 150)
  • The parent department was directed to determine their cadre and seniority by placing each officer immediately above the candidates who had been junior to that officer in the Sub-Divisional Officer (Panchayati Raj) cadre. [1] (paras 117; PDF pp. 150)
  • The portion of the High Court judgment that had protected the officers’ continued service in the PW(B&R) Department, together with consequential directions from serial number 4 onward, was set aside. [1] (paras 118; PDF pp. 150-151)
  • All connected civil appeals were disposed of in these terms. [1] (paras 119; PDF pp. 151)

STATUTES INVOLVED

InstrumentProvisionsRelevance
Constitution of IndiaArticles 14, 16, 142, 226 and 309Article 309 supplied the rule-making foundation for the 1965 Rules; Articles 14 and 16 framed the public-employment fairness challenge; Articles 226 and 142 were invoked in submissions concerning the permissible scope of judicial relief. [1]
Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, as adopted by HaryanaRules 2(3), 2(4), 2(9), 2(10), 2(12), 2(15), 6(1), 6(3), 7(4), 8, 9, 10, 11(1)(b), 12(1), 12(5) and 21The Rules governed recruitment, transfer appointment, probation and seniority in the PW(B&R) engineering service and formed the direct legal basis for invalidating the absorptions. [1]

KEY PRECEDENTS AND THEIR TREATMENT

Precedent & CitationTreatmentPrinciple/Application
State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 372relied_onRelied on for the recognised meaning of deputation as temporary service outside the parent cadre, undertaken with the employee’s consent and followed by return to the parent department. [1]
Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (1999) 4 SCC 659relied_onRelied on for the tripartite and public-interest character of deputation involving the lending authority, borrowing authority and employee. [1]
Kunal Nanda v. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC 362appliedApplied for the rule that a deputationist has no vested right to continue in the borrowing department or to secure absorption without a statutory basis. [1]
CBI v. Ramesh Chander Diwan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 871relied_onRelied on to reaffirm that a consensual public-service deputation ordinarily preserves the relationship with the parent department and contemplates repatriation. [1]
Chief Engineer v. K.S. Brar, 1988 Supp SCC 756distinguishedDistinguished because the challenge to the transfer appointment in K.S. Brar had been expressly given up and that case proceeded only on seniority under Rule 12(5); it did not validate the present absorptions. [1]
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1appliedApplied for the distinction between an illegal appointment made in breach of governing rules and a curable irregularity, and for rejecting regularisation through sympathy or long service. [1]
Ramlal Khurana v. State of Punjab, (1989) 4 SCC 99appliedApplied to explain lien as the substantive right to hold a post and to conclude that lien in the parent cadre would revive after the illegal absorptions were set aside and the officers repatriated. [1]

LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE

  • The judgment gives a concrete and restrictive meaning to “special circumstances” under Rule 10: the exception is for an extraordinary public-service need, not an ordinary vacancy position or administrative convenience. [1] (paras 92, 108-109; PDF pp. 133-143)
  • It reinforces that courts cannot use long service or hardship to preserve a public appointment that was illegal from inception under the governing recruitment rules. [1] [3] (paras 114-116; PDF pp. 146-150)
  • It confirms that setting aside an unlawful absorption need not leave the employee without a service home: repatriation can revive the substantive lien and require lawful restoration of parent-cadre seniority. [1] (paras 115.1, 117; PDF pp. 148-150)
  • The decision separates three analytically distinct questions—lawfulness of deputation, validity of absorption and seniority—making clear that seniority cannot be adjudicated as though the underlying entry into the borrowing cadre were valid. [1] (paras 44, 116; PDF pp. 97-98, 149-150)

PRACTICAL IMPACT — EDITORIAL ANALYSIS

  • For government departments, the ruling means that a transfer appointment should be preceded by a documented exceptional need, a lawful vacancy route and transparent institutional decision-making; routine staff shortages should ordinarily be addressed through the recruitment and stop-gap mechanisms already provided by the rules. [1] (paras 46.5.1-46.7, 92, 108-109; PDF pp. 100-102, 133-143)
  • For deputationists, long tenure in the borrowing department should not be treated as a substitute for a valid absorption order or as an automatic source of seniority; service records should continue to preserve the employee’s parent-cadre position until a lawful permanent appointment occurs. [1] (paras 51-53, 115.1, 117; PDF pp. 107-111, 148-150)
  • For service-law litigation, the decision suggests that courts should determine the legality of the initial deputation and absorption before resolving competing seniority claims, because an invalid entry cannot support a durable seniority entitlement. [1] (paras 44, 90, 116; PDF pp. 97-98, 131, 149-150)

SOURCE CITATIONS & ILI-STYLE BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana, 2026 INSC 878 (Supreme Court of India, decided on 18 August 2026). Open source

[2] Supreme Court of India, Office Report, Diary No. 15281 of 2023, Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (listed 24 April 2023). Open source

[3] Yash Mittal, “Illegality In Appointment Cannot Be Regularised Citing Long Duration Of Service: Supreme Court”, LiveLaw, 18 August 2026. Open source

EDITORIAL NOTE

View linked judgment PDF