Deputationists have no vested right to continue indefinitely in the borrowing department.

The petitioner, a Lecturer (PGT Hindi), was substantively posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Sarai Khawja, Faridabad. She was deputed to P.M. Shri Government Senior Secondary School, Ujha, Panipat, where she joined on 26.01.2023.

Her deputation was subsequently extended through departmental memoranda, including up to the completion of the next General Teacher Transfer Drive; however, no such drive had taken place.

An FIR was registered against her under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The police thereafter prepared a cancellation report, and a departmental enquiry based on the same allegations reportedly exonerated her.

Despite this, the respondents cancelled her deputation by order dated 13.08.2026 and relieved her by letter dated 14.08.2026.

The petitioner challenged these orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, relying, inter alia, on her family responsibilities and alleged discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis other deputationists.

The State contended that deputation was temporary, that she had no vested right to continue, and that she had already joined her parent school at Faridabad on 18.08.2026.

Whether the petitioner had a vested or enforceable right to continue on deputation at P.M. Shri Government Senior Secondary School, Ujha, Panipat, so as to invalidate the order cancelling her deputation.

Whether the petitioner’s alleged exoneration in the criminal and departmental proceedings, family responsibilities, and claim of unequal treatment justified judicial interference with the cancellation of deputation and relieving order.

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution concerning judicial review and supervisory jurisdiction.

It held that deputation is ordinarily a consensual, temporary and administrative arrangement involving the employee, the lending or parent department, and the borrowing department.

A deputation order does not create an indefeasible or vested right to continue in the borrowing department for an indefinite period, and the deputationist remains substantively connected with the parent department unless there is lawful absorption or another service-law-recognised action.

Continuation on deputation remains subject to the governing terms, administrative requirements and lawful discretion of the competent authorities.

Family hardship or satisfactory conduct may invite administrative consideration but, absent a statutory or enforceable right, cannot compel continuation on deputation.

No specific statutory provision, service rule or binding instruction conferring such a right was shown to the Court.

The Court found that the petitioner’s deputation was temporary and did not alter her substantive posting in the parent department at Faridabad.

The extensions of deputation and the fact that she had served at Panipat for a substantial period could not transform the temporary arrangement into a permanent or indefeasible entitlement.

Her alleged exoneration from the FIR-related allegations did not create a right to remain on deputation, because the continuation of deputation was governed independently by administrative discretion and departmental requirements.

Similarly, her children’s educational and special-needs requirements constituted, at most, grounds for sympathetic administrative consideration and did not justify a writ compelling the respondents to retain her at Panipat.

Since no statutory or enforceable right was established and the petitioner had rejoined her parent school, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders.

The cancellation of deputation dated 13.08.2026 and the consequential relieving letter dated 14.08.2026 were not legally unsustainable.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.