Politically influenced “backdoor” appointments in Haryana PWD quashed; Supreme Court orders four officers’ repatriation

Four officers of the Development and Panchayat Department—Pradeep Atri, Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia—were sent on deputation to the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads), Haryana (“PW(B&R) Department”), and subsequently absorbed as Sub-Divisional Engineers/Assistant Engineers (Civil).

Atri and Chaudhary had sought deputation shortly after their appointments and while on probation; Gaur and Bhatia were deputed pursuant to a departmental requisition.

The four officers were later absorbed against vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, with the State assigning them varying degrees of seniority over directly recruited officers.

The High Court held that the deputation and absorption were contrary to the applicable service rules and influenced by political interference, but, taking a sympathetic view based on their long service and the alleged extinguishment of their lien, allowed them to continue in the PW(B&R) Department while restricting their seniority.

Whether the deputation of Pradeep Atri, Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia from the Development and Panchayat Department to the PW(B&R) Department was legal, valid and justified.

Whether the subsequent absorption of the four deputationists as Sub-Divisional Engineers/Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the PW(B&R) Department was legal and valid under the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965.

If the absorption was valid, whether the seniority assigned to the four officers under Rule 12 of the 1965 Rules was legally sustainable.

Whether the High Court could permit the officers to continue in the borrowing department after holding their deputation and absorption to be illegal.

The Court applied the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, as adopted by Haryana.

Rule 6 provides for recruitment through direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio of 50:50, while Rule 6(3) permits only a limited stop-gap arrangement by promotion until direct recruits become available.

Rule 10 permits appointment by transfer only in “special circumstances” and with the approval of the Public Service Commission.

Rule 12(1) generally determines seniority by the order of appointment, subject to Rule 12(5), which concerns officers appointed by transfer.

The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar and Kunal Nanda v. Union of India for the principles that deputation is a temporary, consensual arrangement for public-service exigencies, ordinarily preserving the employee’s relationship and lien with the parent department, and conferring no vested right to absorption.

It further applied the principle in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi that an appointment made in violation of statutory rules cannot be regularised merely on the basis of long continuance or sympathy.

The Court also held that “special circumstances” under Rule 10 must be exceptional and more than routine vacancies, staff shortages or ordinary administrative exigencies.

The Court found that Atri’s deputation was initiated by his personal request while he was still on probation, without a proper requisition from the borrowing department or due involvement of the parent department; the process was therefore inconsistent with the consensual and public-interest character of deputation.

Chaudhary’s deputation was similarly tainted by ministerial recommendations and political intervention, and was initiated shortly after his appointment while he remained on probation.

Although Gaur and Bhatia were deputed pursuant to a formal departmental requisition, their deputation was inconsistent with Rule 6(3), which provided a lawful stop-gap mechanism for meeting vacancies.

In all four cases, the Court held that the asserted shortage of engineers and the existence of vacancies did not constitute “special circumstances” under Rule 10, particularly when regular recruitment was already underway and the Rules provided an alternative temporary mechanism.

The absorption orders were additionally defective because the officers were appointed by transfer against vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, notwithstanding that appointment by transfer was not a regular recruitment mode under Rule 6 and was expressly excluded from the definition of direct appointment.

Political recommendations, the failure of some officers to qualify in the direct-recruitment process, and the use of absorption to secure appointments indirectly reinforced the conclusion that the process amounted to an impermissible backdoor entry.

Having held the absorption void, the Court considered it unnecessary to decide the seniority question under Rule 12(5).

Long service and the alleged extinguishment of lien could not validate an appointment void from inception; upon setting aside the illegal absorption, the officers’ lien in their parent department stood capable of revival.

The absorption of all four officers in the PW(B&R) Department was held to be illegal, non est and void for violation of the 1965 Rules.

The Court set aside the High Court’s decision permitting their continuance in the PW(B&R) Department and directed their repatriation to the Development and Panchayat Department.

Their cadre position and seniority were directed to be determined there, placing them immediately above the candidates who were junior to them in the seniority list of Sub-Divisional Officers (Panchayati Raj).

The Court therefore did not adjudicate the competing seniority claims in the PW(B&R) Department, and all civil appeals were disposed of accordingly.