Deputationist lacks vested right to extension beyond original tenure despite spouse posting or personal hardship grounds.

The applicant, a Senior Auditor in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IA), was serving on deputation in the office of Respondent No. 3 (New Delhi) from March 2021.

Upon the completion of her fifth year of deputation on March 26, 2026, she sought a sixth-year extension on humanitarian grounds, citing her husband’s employment as a teacher in Delhi and the needs of her 22-month-old son.

The Parent Cadre Controlling Authority (Respondent No. 2) denied the extension, noting that the vacancy position in the parent office was 38%, exceeding the 25% ceiling mandated by the Revised Deputation Policy dated January 27, 2025.

An order dated April 30, 2026, was issued directing her repatriation to Chennai by May 8, 2026.

The applicant challenged this repatriation and sought a review of the 2025 policy.

1. Whether a deputationist has a legally enforceable right to continue on deputation beyond the stipulated period or claim an extension based on personal/spouse grounds.

2. Whether the revised Deputation Policy dated January 27, 2025, specifically the 25% vacancy cap for allowing deputations, is legally valid and binding.

The Tribunal applied the principle that deputation is not a vested right and a deputationist can be repatriated at any time to their parent department (U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh v. Daya Ram Saroj).

Transfers and postings are incidents of service governed by administrative exigencies, and while spouse-posting guidelines should be considered, they do not confer an indefeasible right (SK Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas).

The rule of stare decisis; the validity of the 2025 IAAD Deputation Policy was already upheld by the Jharkhand High Court in Adwin Vinifred Tirkey v. UOI (W.P.(S) No. 6056/2025), which serves as a binding precedent.

The applicant’s request for extension directly conflicted with Clause (g) and (h) of the Revised Deputation Policy of 2025, which prohibit extensions if the parent office's vacancy exceeds 25%; in this case, the vacancy was 38%.

Administrative needs and the scarcity of staff in the parent department (Chennai) outweighed the applicant’s personal hardships regarding her spouse and child.

The Tribunal distinguished this case from others where deputation was curtailed prematurely, noting that the applicant had already completed the standard five-year maximum tenure.

By adhering to the hierarchical supremacy of decisions, the Tribunal concluded it was bound by the Jharkhand High Court's prior validation of the same policy and the same IAAD administrative constraints.

The Original Application (O.A.) was dismissed at the admission stage and the Tribunal granted the applicant liberty to file a representation before the competent authority for consideration of her grievances.