Deputationists possess no vested legal right to absorption and may be repatriated to parent cadres at any time.

The applicants, working as Nursing Officers/Senior Nursing Officers at GMCH-32 and GMSH-16, Chandigarh, held M.Sc. Nursing degrees.

They were posted as Nursing Tutors on deputation at the College of Nursing, Chandigarh.

Their three-year deputation tenure expired on 12.01.2026.

On 05.02.2026, the respondents issued a circular to fill seven Tutor posts by assigning "additional charge" to other regular Nursing Officers as a stop-gap arrangement.

Subsequently, on 05.03.2026, the respondents issued orders repatriating the applicants to their parent departments.

The applicants challenged these orders, seeking to quash the repatriation and demanding regular promotion to the 75% quota of Tutor posts as per the Punjab Nursing Education (Group-B) Service Rules, 2016.

1. Whether a deputationist has a vested legal right to continue in the deputation post indefinitely beyond the sanctioned tenure or until replaced by a regular appointee.

2. Whether the administrative decision to replace deputationists with regular employees holding "additional charge" is legally valid.

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to a direction for immediate promotion to the posts of Nursing Tutors.

The Court primarily applied the principle that a deputationist does not have a legal right to be absorbed or to continue indefinitely and can be reverted to their parent cadre at any time, as established in Ratilal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat (1990).

The Court distinguished the precedents Hagurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) and Manish Gupta v. President Jan Bhagidari Samity, noting that while one ad-hoc arrangement cannot generally be replaced by another identical ad-hoc arrangement, the replacement of a deputationist by a regular employee through "additional charge" constitutes a valid administrative stop-gap measure.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants’ three-year tenure had already concluded in January 2026, rendering the repatriation order (Annexure A-2) legally sound.

It rejected the applicants' contention that they could only be replaced by regular appointees, holding that assigning additional charge to regular institutional employees is a valid exercise of administrative discretion to ensure continuity in teaching.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the new incumbents were being engaged on the same terms (deputation) as the applicants; rather, they were regular employees taking on extra duties.

Regarding the claim for promotion, the Tribunal noted that such claims must be governed by the relevant rules and do not entitle the applicants to hold onto deputation posts following the expiry of their term.

The repatriation orders and the circular for additional charge (Annexures A-1 and A-2) were upheld as valid administrative actions.

The Tribunal clarified that while the respondents may review deputation needs in the interest of students, the applicants cannot legally challenge their return to the parent cadre.

No costs were awarded.