Deputationists cannot claim absorption or deemed appointment under initial constitution clauses of newly notified recruitment rules.

The applicant was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Border Roads Organisation in 2001 and later joined the Ministry of Textiles as a Data Entry Operator in 2005.

In 2009, he joined the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Madurai, on deputation as an LDC and was subsequently promoted to Court Master in 2012.

On March 4, 2016, due to the absence of specific Recruitment Rules (RRs) for higher posts at DRT Madurai, the applicant was appointed as a Recovery Inspector on a deputation basis for three years.

On June 8, 2018, the Ministry of Finance issued executive instructions and new Recruitment Rules (RRs 2018), which merged the post of Recovery Inspector with that of Assistant.

Upon the expiry of his three-year deputation tenure on March 4, 2019, the applicant was repatriated to his substantive post of Court Master (re-designated as UDC).

The applicant challenged this repatriation, seeking to be treated as an "Assistant" under the new RRs and included in the common seniority list.

1. Whether an employee appointed to a post purely on a deputation basis is entitled to be treated as having been substantively appointed to a merged cadre under new Recruitment Rules.

2. Whether the repatriation of the applicant to his parent cadre upon completion of his deputation tenure was legally sustainable.

The court applied the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Debts Recovery Tribunals Recruitment Rules, 2018, which mandated a unified cadre and common seniority list for the post of Assistant.

It further relied on settled principles of service jurisprudence which establish that a deputationist does not acquire a vested right to continue in a deputed post beyond the sanctioned tenure, nor do they possess a right to absorption or promotion unless explicitly provided by the rules.

The court also considered the DoPT Office Memorandum dated December 21, 2010, regarding "Initial Constitution" clauses, noting that such clauses are intended to protect officers already holding posts on a regular or long-term basis.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s appointment as Recovery Inspector was explicitly temporary and on a deputation basis for a fixed three-year term.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that the 2018 merger of posts should result in his automatic absorption as an Assistant.

It clarified that the benefits of cadre restructuring and the "initial constitution" clause apply only to those holding posts on a regular or substantive basis, not to deputationists.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination, noting that the applicant failed to prove that other similarly situated deputationists were treated differently; those included in the seniority list were either regular employees or held posts substantively under prior rules.

The court concluded that the completion of the deputation tenure legally necessitated repatriation to the applicant's substantive rank of UDC.

The court found no infirmity in the impugned circular dated December 27, 2018, or the repatriation order dated March 4, 2019.

Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.