Deputation policies must align with spouse-posting guidelines and ensure non-discriminatory application across all administrative cadres.

The Applicants are employees of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IA & AD) serving on deputation at various field offices on spouse grounds

Following the abolition of the "unilateral transfer" scheme in 1997, deputation became the primary administrative mechanism to facilitate the posting of spouses at the same station, in line with various Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memoranda (1986–2022)

On 27.01.2025, the Respondents issued a new deputation policy imposing a rigid seven-year cap on tenure, a mandatory three-year cooling-off period, and strict repatriation requirements

Subsequent orders dated 28.01.2025 and 03.04.2025 exempted staff at the CAG Headquarters and Central Training Institutes from this policy

The Applicants challenged the policy as arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the social objectives of spouse-posting guidelines

1. Whether the impugned deputation policy dated 27.01.2025 is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

2. Whether the policy’s rigid tenure cap and exceptions for specific offices are consistent with the mandatory/directory DoPT guidelines regarding the posting of husband and wife at the same station

The court primarily applied the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution, which requires administrative policies to have a rational nexus with their objectives

It relied on DoPT OMs (dated 23.08.2004, 30.09.2009, and 24.11.2022), which emphasize the state’s obligation as a model employer to promote family welfare and women’s participation by posting spouses together

The court distinguished the definition of "deputation" established in State of Punjab v. Inder Singh (1997) 8 SCC 372 and Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar (1999) 4 SCC 659, noting that internal deputations within IA & AD function as a substitute for transfers

the court applied the doctrine from Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111, asserting that precedents must be applied contextually rather than mechanically

The Tribunal observed that since unilateral transfers were banned in 1997, deputation within IA & AD is not "classical deputation" but a necessary tool for human resource management; therefore, traditional rigidities of service outside a cadre do not strictly apply

The court found the policy arbitrary on three counts: first, it created a privileged class by exempting Headquarters and Training Institute staff without any "intelligible differentia" or rational nexus to administrative efficiency

second, the uniform seven-year cap failed to provide a flexible mechanism for relaxation in cases of genuine spouse-related hardship, reflecting a "one-size-fits-all" approach

third, the Respondents’ position was internally inconsistent, as they permitted spouse-ground deputations but classified them as "not in public interest" to deny allowances

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondents failed to consider germane factors such as family disruption and the absence of alternative transfer mechanisms

The policy was remitted to the Respondents with directions to: (i) incorporate a transparent relaxation mechanism for the seven-year cap in exceptional spouse-hardship cases; (ii) ensure uniform application or justify exceptions with rational criteria; and (iii) align the policy with the spirit of DoPT spouse-posting guidelines

The Respondents were further directed to pass reasoned orders on the Applicants' individual representations

The Tribunal ordered that Applicants shall not be forcibly repatriated for four months or until their representations are decided, maintaining the status quo during this period