Subsequent relaxation of deputation debarment cannot retrospectively validate an invalid nomination.

The Applicants, Arun Mohan Joshi and Neeru Garg, were IPS officers of the Uttarakhand Cadre substantively holding the rank of Inspector General (IG).

During an earlier Central Deputation process, they had expressed unwillingness to proceed on deputation.

Their names were subsequently withdrawn by the State Government on 4 January 2025, following which the earlier deputation was cancelled and the Applicants were debarred for five years from Central Deputation, foreign assignments and consultancies under paragraph 17 of the IPS Tenure Policy.

Despite the subsisting debarment, the Government of Uttarakhand forwarded their names for Central Deputation on 16 February 2026, without obtaining fresh willingness.

The Central Government thereafter appointed them to DIG-level posts in the BSF and ITBP on 5 March 2026, and the State Government relieved them on 6 March 2026.

The Applicants challenged the nomination, appointment/deputation and relieving orders, contending that the nomination violated the debarment policy, that no valid relaxation had been obtained at the nomination stage, and that their appointment to DIG-level posts impermissibly affected their status as substantive IGs.

1. Whether the State Government could validly nominate the Applicants for Central Deputation on 16 February 2026 while their five-year debarment under paragraph 17 of the IPS Tenure Policy was subsisting, in the absence of a demonstrated relaxation or other lawful basis at the nomination stage?

2. Whether the subsequent revocation of the Applicants’ debarment by the Central Government before issuance of the appointment orders retrospectively cured any defect in the initial nomination?

3. Whether the absence of fresh willingness, in light of the Applicants’ earlier unwillingness and the State Government’s previous withdrawal of their names, rendered the subsequent nomination arbitrary or procedurally defective?

4. Whether appointment of substantively ranked IG officers to DIG-level Central posts unlawfully reduced their rank or otherwise invalidated the deputation, particularly under Article 311(2) of the Constitution?

5. Whether the consequential Central appointment/deputation orders dated 5 March 2026 and relieving/discharge orders dated 6 March 2026 were liable to be quashed?

The Tribunal applied Rule 6(1) of the IPS (Cadre) Rules, under which Central Deputation requires the concurrence of the State and Central Governments, while holding that the State’s nomination must itself conform to the governing statutory and policy framework.

It applied paragraph 17 of the IPS Tenure Policy, under which withdrawal of an officer’s name after recommendation may result in a five-year debarment from Central Deputation and related assignments, and paragraph 20, which permits relaxation by the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed mechanism.

The Tribunal relied on the Government instructions dated 27 November 2008 and 10 December 2025, particularly the principle that a debarred officer should not be nominated or included in the offer list during the period of debarment.

It further applied Article 14 of the Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary administrative action, and considered Article 311(2), while declining to hold that every deputation to a lower-designated post automatically constitutes a reduction in rank.

The Tribunal also relied on Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 3 SCC 443, for the rule that an interim order remains binding until modified, vacated or set aside by a competent court.

Rule 7 of the IPS Pay Rules concerning pay protection was treated as protecting financial entitlements but not as independently validating an otherwise unlawful deputation.

The Tribunal held that the Applicants’ debarment was undisputed and was subsisting when their names were forwarded on 16 February 2026.

Although the Central Government possessed a power of relaxation and later revoked the debarment before issuing the appointment orders, the State Government had not produced any contemporaneous material showing that it had considered the debarment or obtained a specific relaxation before making the nomination.

The later revocation could therefore validate the Central Government’s authority at the appointment stage but could not retrospectively cure an invalid initiation of the nomination process.

The Tribunal further found that the absence of fresh willingness assumed significance because the State had previously sought the Applicants’ willingness, acted upon their refusal, withdrawn their names and participated in the resulting debarment.

The unexplained departure from that earlier position, coupled with the absence of fresh willingness, indicated that the nomination was not the result of a properly considered exercise of discretion.

General administrative requirements, including vacancies in the Central Deputation Reserve and cadre imbalance, could not override an individual restriction imposed under the policy.

On rank, the Tribunal accepted that non-empanelment for IG-level Central appointment could make an officer eligible only for a DIG-level Central post without altering the officer’s substantive IG rank in the parent cadre.

However, pay protection did not cure the foundational defect in the nomination, and the Tribunal did not rest its decision solely on Article 311(2).

Considering the cumulative circumstances, the Tribunal found the nomination arbitrary and legally infirm, amounting to malice in law because the nomination power was exercised in disregard of material policy restrictions.

The Tribunal quashed the Uttarakhand Government’s nomination/forwarding letter dated 16 February 2026, the Central Government’s appointment/deputation orders dated 5 March 2026 insofar as they concerned the Applicants, and the consequential relieving/discharge orders dated 6 March 2026.

The Respondents were directed to restore the Applicants to the positions they would have occupied in the Uttarakhand Cadre absent the impugned orders, with all consequential service benefits.

The intervening period was to be regularised under the applicable rules and was not to prejudice the Applicants’ seniority, qualifying service, promotion, career progression or other legitimate service benefits.

The Respondents were also directed to file a compliance report.

The pending contempt petitions were listed for consideration and reporting of compliance on 7 October 2026, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of without costs.