Gujarat HC Rejects Junagadh Court Clerk’s Permanent DRT Job Plea, Says Deputation Gives No Automatic Right To NOC

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner had an enforceable right to an NOC or permanent absorption in the borrowing department.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner had no legal right to an NOC or permanent absorption and that no ground for interference had been made out.

It also directed

It dismissed the petition, discharged the rule, vacated any interim relief, and made no order as to costs; the connected civil applications were disposed of as not surviving.

The dismissal order was stayed for four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy.

01Facts

The petitioner, an Assistant in the District Court, Junagadh, was selected in 2022 for a three-year deputation as an Upper Division Clerk at the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad.

pp. 3–6

His deputation was extended until 30 April 2026, with no further extension.

pp. 3–6

In February 2026, the Tribunal sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the High Court for his permanent absorption.

pp. 3–6, 8–10

The petitioner challenged the refusal to issue the NOC and sought consideration of the absorption proposal and continuation on deputation.

pp. 3–6, 8–10

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner had an enforceable right to an NOC or permanent absorption in the borrowing department.

pp. 11–13

ii.Whether the parent department’s refusal to issue an NOC warranted interference under Article 226 as arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or contrary to law.

pp. 12–15

03Law Applied

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, a court may review a refusal to issue an NOC where it is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, mala fide, or contrary to a statutory provision.

pp. 11–13

An employee on deputation has no fundamental or indefeasible right to permanent absorption, and absorption requires the consent of the employee, borrowing department, and lending department.

pp. 11–13

The Court referred to the policy decision dated 19 May 2014 and the Recruitment Rules dated 8 June 2018 in recording the respondents’ position, but cited no precedent or specific statutory provision as the basis for its holding.

pp. 9–10

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s deputation had a defined expiry date, and the extension expressly stated that it would not be extended further.

pp. 12–15

The Court found that the petitioner had not established mala fides, arbitrariness, discrimination, or breach of a statutory provision in the refusal to issue the NOC.

pp. 12–15

The borrowing department’s staffing needs did not create a legal entitlement to absorption, and the decision whether to issue an NOC remained within the parent department’s domain, subject to judicial review on established grounds.

pp. 12–15

05Holding

The Court held that the petitioner had no legal right to an NOC or permanent absorption and that no ground for interference had been made out.

pp. 13–14

It dismissed the petition, discharged the rule, vacated any interim relief, and made no order as to costs; the connected civil applications were disposed of as not surviving.

pp. 13–14

The dismissal order was stayed for four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy.

p. 14

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF