Deputation confers no right to permanent absorption; repatriation to the parent department is lawful.

The first respondent was serving as a Sanitary Inspector in Gudalur Municipality and possessed a B.Sc. degree.

Following the enactment and implementation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, employees from the Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, municipalities and corporations were deputed to the newly constituted Food Safety Department, and the first respondent was deputed accordingly.

Subsequently, the Government framed service rules under G.O.Ms.No.438, Health and Family Welfare (M1) Department, dated 24 September 2018, prescribing direct recruitment as the method of appointment to the post of Food Safety Officer.

The Government thereafter decided to cancel the deputations and repatriate the deputed employees to their parent departments.

The first respondent challenged his repatriation, and the Writ Court allowed his petition on 8 January 2025, principally relying on an earlier Division Bench decision in W.A.No.1406 of 2024.

The State preferred the present writ appeal.

The Court applied the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, under which the Food Safety Department was constituted and Food Safety Officers were appointed.

It relied on the service rules framed through G.O.Ms.No.438, Health and Family Welfare (M1) Department, dated 24 September 2018, prescribing direct recruitment as the exclusive method of appointment and treating the saving clause as protection for existing officers to discharge statutory functions, not as an order of permanent absorption.

The Court also considered G.O.Ms.No.347, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 22 December 2011, holding that the reference to “integration” did not by itself establish permanent absorption of deputed employees.

The governing service-law principle was that deputation does not confer a right to permanent absorption, and a deputed employee may be repatriated to the parent department, particularly where lien and seniority continue to be maintained there.

The Court distinguished W.A.No.1406 of 2024 because that case concerned repatriation on the ground of service deficiency without giving the employee an opportunity of hearing.

The Court found that the first respondent had entered the Food Safety Department only on deputation, as part of an administrative arrangement adopted to implement the 2006 Act before final service rules were framed.

Once the Government framed rules prescribing direct recruitment, the deputed employees could not claim permanent absorption contrary to those rules.

The Court rejected the argument that the word “integration” in G.O.Ms.No.347 converted deputation into permanent absorption, holding that deputation from different departments, municipalities and corporations did not alter the employees’ original recruitment, qualifications, service conditions, lien or seniority.

Repatriation was therefore an administrative consequence of the Government’s policy and did not adversely affect the employees’ substantive service rights, since they remained entitled to serve in their parent departments.

The earlier Division Bench ruling was held inapplicable because it addressed a different factual and legal basis for repatriation.

The writ appeal was allowed; the Writ Court’s order dated 8 January 2025 in W.P.No.18785 of 2019 was set aside; and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

No order as to costs was made.