Hemant Kumar v. State of Haryana
Supreme Court of India, 18 August 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 878
The Court held the absorption of four deputationists as Assistant Engineers in Haryana's PW(B&R) Department illegal and void, since no special circumstances existed under Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, and ordered their repatriation to their parent department.
Facts
Four officers recruited as Sub-Divisional Officers (Panchayati Raj) in the Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana, went on deputation to the PW(B&R) Department while still on probation. One sought it himself by writing directly to the borrowing department; another's deputation followed letters from the Revenue and Transport Ministers; the other two were among ten officers taken after a requisition in 2007. All four were then absorbed as Assistant Engineers (Civil) by appointment by transfer under Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, against direct recruitment vacancies, with ministers and MLAs supporting several requests. Three had failed the direct recruitment for that post. Direct recruits challenged the absorption and seniority. On 15.03.2023 the High Court held the deputation and absorption bad in law but, as the officers had no lien in the parent department and had served since 2005, did not disturb them, only denying them seniority over direct recruits. All sides appealed.
Questions before the Court
- Was the deputation of the four officers from the Development and Panchayat Department to the PW(B&R) Department legal and valid?
- Was their absorption as Sub-Divisional Engineer/Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PW(B&R) Department, by appointment by transfer under Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, legal and valid?
- If so, was the seniority assigned to them by the State, or reassigned by the High Court, valid?
What the Court held
- Deputation is a temporary arrangement made for exigencies of public service, with the consent of the parent department, the borrowing department and the employee. A deputationist has no right to absorption unless the rules of the borrowing department provide for it, and his lien with the parent department is not severed during deputation.
- The deputation of the two officers who started it themselves, one by bypassing his parent department and one through ministers unconnected with either department, was illegal. The deputation of the other two, made on a departmental requisition, was faulty as contrary to Rule 6(3) but only irregular.
- 'Special circumstances' under Rule 10 means something more than normal or routine. Accrual of vacancies, shortage of officers, M.Tech degrees, good work on deputation and the prospect of being juniormost on return are not special circumstances. Appointment by transfer against direct recruitment vacancies was contrary to the 1965 Rules, so all four absorptions were illegal, non est and void.
- Illegality, unlike irregularity, cannot be cured by lapse of time or regularised by a sympathetic view of long service. The High Court erred in letting the officers continue. Their lien in the parent department revives on repatriation, and they were ordered back there, placed immediately above those who were junior to them. The seniority question was not decided.
Why it matters
The judgment restates principles of deputation in service law: deputation rests on consent of three parties, meets a public need, is temporary, and gives no right to absorption unless the borrowing department's rules provide for it. It reads 'special circumstances' for appointment by transfer narrowly, so that ordinary vacancies or the officer's merits do not qualify, and holds absorption gained through political influence invalid. It also holds that an illegal appointment cannot be saved on sympathy for long service, and that lien in the parent post revives on repatriation.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Deputation is ordinarily from one department to another department. It is resorted to for exigencies of public service. At the time of deputation, there must be a consensus between the three stakeholders i.e. the parent department, the borrowing department and the officer/employee concerned. A deputationist per se has no right to claim absorption in the borrowing department unless the rules of the borrowing department provide for such absorption. Therefore, by its very nature, deputation can only be temporary.”
“'Special circumstances' in our understanding means something which is more than normal or routine. Accrual of vacancies in a cadre is a routine phenomenon; this is not something which is unusual or abnormal. The so-called stay was not granted by the High Court but was a statement made by the State before the High Court. These circumstances cannot be termed as special within the meaning of Rule 10.”
“It is void ab initio. Illegality cannot be cured and made legal and valid by lapse of time. Illegality, which is distinct and different from irregularity, cannot be regularized by taking a sympathetic view on the ground of long continuance in service. This position has been explained by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules, in this case the 1965 Rules, it is an illegality.”
“We further hold and declare that the absorption of Shri Pradeep Atri, Shri Praveen Chaudhary, Shri Pankaj Gaur and Shri Arun Bhatia in the PW(B&R) Department is illegal, non est and void. The same is accordingly set aside and quashed. Consequently, their continuance in the PW(B&R) Department on deputation has become wholly untenable. The above four officers are therefore directed to be repatriated back to the Development and Panchayat Department, Government of Haryana”
Provisions interpreted
- Rule 10, Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 (as adopted by Haryana)
- Rule 6, Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 (as adopted by Haryana)
- Rule 2(9), Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 (as adopted by Haryana)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Hemant Kumar v. State of Haryana
- Case
- Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 12017-12018 of 2023) with connected civil appeals
- Decided
- 18 August 2026
- Bench
- Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment written by Ujjal Bhuyan, J. and signed by both Judges; there is no separate opinion.