A deputationist has no inherent right to absorption, and eligibility does not constitute an entitlement to permanent appointment.

The Petitioner was recruited as ASI/Radio Mechanic in the BSF on February 1, 2012

On February 18, 2019, he was appointed as SI/JE (Electrical) on deputation for three years, a period later extended until April 23, 2023

The appointment order and the governing Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) dated January 31, 2013, expressly stated that deputationists have no inherent right to absorption and that discretion rests solely with the BSF

After his deputation ended, the Petitioner represented for permanent absorption on May 9, 2023, but was repatriated to his parent unit on May 19, 2023

Following previous litigation, the DG BSF rejected his representation on July 31, 2023, citing his failure to complete 18 years of service (per a 2016 MHA policy), the fact that his deputation had already expired, and his prior undertaking not to seek absorption

1. Whether a deputationist possesses an enforceable legal right to be absorbed into the borrowing department upon fulfilling eligibility criteria

2. Whether the BSF was legally obligated to convene a Screening Committee to consider the Petitioner’s case for absorption simply because he completed two years of service

3. Whether the repatriation of the Petitioner following the expiry of his deputation tenure was valid

The court primarily applied the principle that a deputationist has no vested right to absorption in the borrowing department and can be repatriated at any time

It relied on Kunal Nanda v. Union of India regarding the lack of inherent right to absorption

and Ratilal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat regarding the power of repatriation

The court further noted that executive instructions (like the 2016 MHA letter) cannot override Recruitment Rules (RRs) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution

and that eligibility for a post is distinct from an entitlement to it

The court reasoned that the Petitioner’s claim failed because eligibility (completing two years of service) does not equate to a legal entitlement to a permanent post

The 2013 SOP and 2019 appointment order explicitly reserved the BSF’s discretion and clarified that absorption was not a routine matter but reserved for "extremely deserving cases"

While the court disapproved of the BSF exacting an undertaking from the Petitioner to waive his right to represent

and questioned the 18-year service requirement in the 2016 MHA letter as potentially ultra vires the RRs

it held these were secondary to the fact that the Petitioner's deputation had already expired by the time he sought absorption

Since he was no longer "on the strength" of the engineering wing at the time of consideration, he was ineligible under the very SOP he relied upon

It held that the Petitioner had no enforceable right to absorption and the BSF had no corresponding legal obligation to absorb him

The court affirmed that once the deputation period ended on April 23, 2023, the BSF acted within its rights to repatriate the Petitioner to his parent unit

Under the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, the absence of a legal right precluded any judicial remedy