Supreme Court Quashes Four Haryana PWD Absorptions, Orders Repatriation to Parent Cadre

The Supreme Court held that four Haryana officers could not remain absorbed in the Public Works (Building and Roads) Department through an exceptional appointment-by-transfer route unsupported by genuine special circumstances. It set aside the High Court's sympathetic protection of their continuation and ordered repatriation to the Development and Panchayat Department.

CASE DETAILS

BENCH

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

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HELD

• The Supreme Court held the deputation of Pradeep Atri and Praveen Chaudhary to the PW(B&R) Department illegal, while treating the deputation of Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia as irregular rather than illegal. [1] (paras 116, 117; PDF pp. p. 149, p. 150)
• The Court held the absorption of all four officers in the PW(B&R) Department illegal, non est and void and set it aside. [1] (paras 116, 117; PDF pp. p. 149, p. 150)
• The Court rejected the High Court's sympathetic decision to let the four officers continue after declaring their entry unlawful, holding that illegality cannot be cured by long continuance in service. [1] (paras 114, 115, 118; PDF pp. p. 146, p. 147, p. 150)
• All four officers were directed to be repatriated to the Development and Panchayat Department, where their cadre and seniority must be fixed immediately above those who were junior to them when they left the parent cadre. [1] (paras 117; PDF pp. p. 150)
• Because the absorptions were set aside as illegal and void, the Court found it unnecessary to decide the seniority controversy under Rule 12(5) of the 1965 Rules. [1] (paras 116; PDF pp. p. 149)

BACKGROUND

• The batch concerned the legality of deputation of four Development and Panchayat Department officers to the Haryana PW(B&R) Department, their later absorption there, and the resulting seniority disputes. [1] (paras 3; PDF pp. p. 2)
• Pradeep Atri sought deputation while still on probation and directly approached the borrowing department; the Court found that the parent department was initially kept out of the process. [1] (paras 70, 72, 73; PDF pp. p. 120, p. 121)
• Praveen Chaudhary's deputation process followed recommendations from the Revenue Minister and Transport Minister soon after his appointment in the parent department, which the Court treated as evidence of political interference and service indiscipline. [1] (paras 74, 75, 76, 77; PDF pp. p. 122, p. 123, p. 124)
• Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia came on deputation after the PW(B&R) Department requisitioned ten willing Sub-Divisional Engineers and the parent department forwarded names, putting their deputation on a different footing from Atri and Chaudhary. [1] (paras 67, 68, 79; PDF pp. p. 119, p. 124, p. 125)
• The Court noted that Rule 6 of the 1965 Rules contemplated regular recruitment equally by direct recruitment and promotion, with a limited stop-gap promotion mechanism pending direct recruitment. [1] (paras 46, 80; PDF pp. p. 98, p. 126)
• Atri requested absorption within months of joining on deputation and was absorbed against a direct-recruitment quota vacancy, subject to later Commission approval. [1] (paras 83, 86, 87, 88; PDF pp. p. 127, p. 128, p. 129)
• Three of the four officers had participated unsuccessfully in the 2006 direct recruitment process, while Praveen Chaudhary had not participated. [1] (paras 35, 92; PDF pp. p. 54, p. 133)
• The High Court found the deputation and absorption bad in law but allowed the officers to continue on sympathetic considerations tied to their long service and perceived loss of lien in the parent department. [1] (paras 114; PDF pp. p. 146, p. 147)

Procedural history

• The appeals arose from the Punjab and Haryana High Court's common judgment dated 15 March 2023 in CWP No. 18515 of 2012 and connected writ petitions concerning deputation, absorption and seniority. [1] (paras 2, 35; PDF pp. p. 2, p. 53)
• Direct recruits challenged the High Court's refusal to terminate or repatriate the four officers despite finding their deputation and absorption unlawful. [1] (paras 35, 40, 41; PDF pp. p. 53, p. 89, p. 92)
• The deputationists and the State separately challenged findings against the legality of deputation/absorption and aspects of the High Court's seniority directions. [1] (paras 36, 37, 38, 39; PDF pp. p. 58, p. 65, p. 76, p. 84)
• The Supreme Court framed three questions: legality of deputation, legality of absorption, and—only if those answers were affirmative—the validity of the seniority position. [1] (paras 44; PDF pp. p. 96, p. 97)

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; PDF pp. p. 96, p. 97)
• Whether their subsequent absorption as Assistant Engineers/Sub-Divisional Engineers in the PW(B&R) Department was legally sustainable under the 1965 Rules. [1] (paras 44; PDF pp. p. 97)
• If deputation and absorption were valid, whether the seniority assigned by the State or modified by the High Court was lawful. [1] (paras 44; PDF pp. p. 97)

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING

Deputation and appointment by transfer

• The Court distinguished transfer simpliciter from appointment by transfer: the former ordinarily changes posting within a cadre, while the latter is a mode of recruitment into a different service. [1] (paras 47, 48; PDF pp. p. 103, p. 104)
• Drawing on State of Punjab v. Inder Singh and Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar, the Court treated deputation as temporary service outside the parent cadre, ordinarily ending in return to the parent department and requiring consent among the relevant actors. [1] (paras 49, 50; PDF pp. p. 104, p. 105)
• Atri's deputation was held severely flawed because he initiated it directly with the borrowing department while on probation, bypassing the parent department and without a requisition grounded in public-service exigency. [1] (paras 70, 73; PDF pp. p. 120, p. 121)
• Chaudhary's deputation was held vitiated because ministerial recommendations preceded the administrative justification and, in the Court's view, reflected political interference rather than a genuine departmental deputation process. [1] (paras 74, 75, 77, 78; PDF pp. p. 122, p. 124)
• Gaur and Bhatia were treated differently because their deputation followed a departmental requisition for ten officers, though the Court still found the arrangement contrary to Rule 6(3) and therefore irregular. [1] (paras 79, 80, 81; PDF pp. p. 125, p. 126, p. 127)

Absorption under Rule 10 and 'special circumstances'

• The Court read Rule 6 as establishing direct recruitment and promotion as the two regular modes of recruitment, making appointment by transfer under Rule 10 an exceptional route available only in special circumstances and with Commission approval. [1] (paras 89; PDF pp. p. 129, p. 130)
• It held that ordinary vacancies, staff shortages, pending recruitment and the fact that an officer was qualified or performing well did not by themselves constitute 'special circumstances' under Rule 10. [1] (paras 91, 92, 93, 112; PDF pp. p. 131, p. 132, p. 133, p. 145)
• The Court explained that 'special circumstances' must denote something beyond the normal or routine, such as a genuine public-service exigency requiring exceptional recruitment by transfer. [1] (paras 92, 109, 110; PDF pp. p. 132, p. 142, p. 143)
• Atri's absorption was additionally incompatible with the rules because he was placed against a vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment even though appointment by transfer was outside direct recruitment. [1] (paras 88, 89, 93; PDF pp. p. 129, p. 130, p. 134)
• The Court found political influence visible in the absorption process, particularly in the cases of Gaur and Bhatia, and said such political interference and favouritism could not be countenanced. [1] (paras 112, 113; PDF pp. p. 145, p. 146)

Effect of illegality, long service and lien

• The Court held that once an appointment is illegal from inception, passage of time and sympathetic considerations cannot convert it into a valid appointment. [1] (paras 115; PDF pp. p. 147, p. 148)
• Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), it treated an appointment made in infraction of recruitment rules as an illegality that cannot be regularised merely because the employee has continued for many years. [1] (paras 115; PDF pp. p. 147)
• On lien, the Court relied on Ramlal Khurana v. State of Punjab and held that setting aside the illegal absorption would revive the officers' substantive lien in the parent department, enabling repatriation. [1] (paras 115.1; PDF pp. p. 148, p. 149)

RATIO DECIDENDI

• Appointment by transfer under Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules is exceptional, not a regular recruitment route; it requires genuine special circumstances beyond ordinary vacancies, staff shortages or routine administrative needs. [1] (paras 89, 92, 109, 110; PDF pp. p. 129, p. 132, p. 142, p. 143)
• A public appointment made in violation of governing recruitment rules is illegal from inception and cannot be cured by long continuance in service or judicial sympathy. [1] (paras 115; PDF pp. p. 147, p. 148)
• Where an illegal absorption into another cadre is set aside, loss of lien in the parent cadre does not necessarily bar repatriation; the substantive lien may revive when the unlawful absorption is undone. [1] (paras 115.1; PDF pp. p. 148, p. 149)

OBITER / IMPORTANT CASE-SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS

No separate material obiter was identified. The observations below are case-specific reasoning supporting the holdings.

• The Court described political interference and favouritism in service appointments as incompatible with service discipline and lawful public administration. [1] (paras 75, 112; PDF pp. p. 122, p. 145)
• The Court observed that a candidate should not be able to achieve through deputation and absorption what the regular competitive recruitment process did not yield. [1] (paras 92; PDF pp. p. 133)

FINAL RULING AND DIRECTIONS

• The absorption of Pradeep Atri, Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia in the PW(B&R) Department is set aside and quashed as illegal, non est and void. [1] (paras 117; PDF pp. p. 150)
• The four officers are directed to be repatriated to the Development and Panchayat Department, Government of Haryana. [1] (paras 117; PDF pp. p. 150)
• On repatriation, the parent department must determine their cadre and seniority by placing them immediately above the candidates who were junior to them in the Sub-Divisional Officer (Panchayati Raj) cadre when they left. [1] (paras 117; PDF pp. p. 150)
• The High Court's direction dated 15 March 2023 not to disturb the four officers' services in the PW(B&R) Department, together with consequential directions from Serial No. 4 onwards, is set aside. [1] (paras 118; PDF pp. p. 150)
• All connected civil appeals are disposed of in the terms stated in the judgment. [1] (paras 119; PDF pp. p. 151)

STATUTES INVOLVED

KEY PRECEDENTS AND THEIR TREATMENT

LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE

• The judgment reinforces that exceptional appointment-by-transfer provisions in service rules cannot be used as a substitute for the prescribed regular recruitment channels. [1] (paras 89, 92, 109, 110; PDF pp. p. 129, p. 132, p. 142, p. 143)
• It confirms that courts should not preserve an illegal public appointment merely because the appointee has remained in service for many years. [1] (paras 115, 118; PDF pp. p. 147, p. 150)
• The decision also clarifies that repatriation may remain legally available after an unlawful absorption is quashed because the substantive lien in the parent cadre can revive. [1] (paras 115.1, 117; PDF pp. p. 148, p. 150)

PRACTICAL IMPACT — EDITORIAL ANALYSIS

• For public employers, the decision makes contemporaneous documentation of a genuine exceptional service need critical before invoking an appointment-by-transfer provision such as Rule 10. [1] (paras 89, 92, 109, 110; PDF pp. p. 129, p. 132, p. 142, p. 143)
• For government employees on deputation, long tenure in the borrowing department does not by itself create security against repatriation where the underlying absorption is found unlawful. [1] (paras 115, 117; PDF pp. p. 147, p. 150)

SOURCE CITATIONS & ILI-STYLE BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

[2] Supreme Court of India, Office Report of Fresh Cases, Diary No. 15281/2023, Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. Open source ↗

[3] Legal Republic, 'Supreme Court Voids Absorption of Four Officers Into Haryana PWD, Orders Repatriation' (19 August 2026). Open source ↗

EDITORIAL NOTE