Deputation service from a non-equivalent post cannot count toward departmental examination eligibility.

The petitioner was appointed as a Peon/Orderly in the Office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Headquarters), Delhi, on 20 December 2017.

He was appointed on deputation to the Delhi High Court Establishment as a Court Attendant from 14 November 2022 and was subsequently absorbed as a Temporary Court Attendant with effect from 1 June 2023.

The High Court issued a circular inviting applications for the 2026 Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer Departmental Competitive Examination under the 25% departmental quota, with 23 May 2026 as the eligibility cut-off date.

The petitioner sought inclusion of his deputation period while computing the qualifying service required for the examination.

His representations were rejected by Memorandum dated 30 May 2026.

He consequently sought permission to appear in the examination, either regularly or provisionally pending adjudication of his petition.

1. Whether the petitioner’s period of deputation as a Court Attendant could be counted towards the qualifying service required for appearing in the Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer (Departmental) Examination, 2026.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to appear provisionally in the departmental examination subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

3. Whether the petitioner’s deputation service could be treated as service in the Delhi High Court Establishment, particularly when he had entered deputation from the post of Peon/Orderly and the Recruitment Rules did not prescribe absorption as a mode of appointment.

The Court applied Rule 9 of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, which permits appointment as a Court Attendant by promotion, transfer or deputation, or direct recruitment, but does not prescribe absorption as a mode of recruitment.

It relied on the principle in Union of India v. Pankaj Agnihotri that deputation service may be counted for seniority or promotional eligibility where deputation is a recognised source of appointment under the applicable recruitment rules; otherwise, the issue depends on the terms of deputation or absorption.

The Court distinguished authorities such as Neetu Bhagat v. AICTE and RITES Ltd. v. Vijai Kishore, where the relevant rules recognised deputation or the appointment was regular under the governing rules.

It also held that the principle in S.I. Rooplal v. Lt. Governor and K. Madhavan v. Union of India, concerning service in the same or an equivalent post, was inapplicable because the petitioner had been a Peon/Orderly before deputation and not a Court Attendant in the parent establishment.

The Court found that although the petitioner had performed duties as a Court Attendant during deputation, he was not serving as a Court Attendant in the Delhi High Court Establishment during that period.

His deputation commenced while he was holding the post of Peon/Orderly in the District Court, and the deputation order merely appointed him as a Court Attendant for an initial period on usual deputation terms, subject to repatriation.

The subsequent absorption order was a simple order of absorption and was not shown to be authorised by the Recruitment Rules, which did not recognise absorption as a mode of appointment.

Since eligibility for promotion under the departmental quota was intended for members of the Delhi High Court Establishment, the relevant qualifying service was service rendered as a Court Attendant in that Establishment, not the preceding period spent on deputation from a different post and parent establishment.

The precedents relied upon by the petitioner involved equivalent posts, recognised modes of appointment, seniority, or materially different recruitment rules, and therefore did not support counting his deputation period.

Consequently, the prayer for regular or provisional permission to appear in the examination was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.