Deputation and absorption – PW(B&R) Department Deputation of four officers from Development & Panchayat Department to PW(B&R) Department and their subsequent absorption as Assistant Engineers (Civil) held legally unsustainable; appointments made against direct recruit quota vacancies. (Paras 3–4, 14–15)

 Supreme Court of India ruling in Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2026 INSC 878, decided 2026):

Headnotes

1. Deputation and absorption – PW(B&R) Department Deputation of four officers from Development & Panchayat Department to PW(B&R) Department and their subsequent absorption as Assistant Engineers (Civil) held legally unsustainable; appointments made against direct recruit quota vacancies. (Paras 3–4, 14–15)

2. Seniority – Direct recruits vs deputationists Deputationists cannot claim seniority over direct recruits appointed on 07.12.2007 or over promotees against vacancies arising before 01.07.2006/2009; absorption orders expressly restricted seniority. (Paras 4–5, 15.15–15.16)

3. Rule 10 of 1965 Rules – Special circumstances Absorption orders relied on Rule 10 of Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II Rules, 1965 permitting appointment in “special circumstances”; Court scrutinised whether such circumstances existed. (Paras 14.10–14.14, 15.8)

4. Approval by Commission – Mandatory Absorption of deputationists subject to approval of Haryana Public Service Commission/Haryana Staff Selection Commission; approvals obtained later but absorption still challenged as irregular. (Paras 14.15, 15.18)

5. Political influence – Ministerial recommendations Absorption requests of deputationists were strongly backed by Ministers and MLAs; Court noted administrative file notings and political endorsements influencing decisions. (Paras 14.3–14.13, 15.1–15.7, 15.11)

6. High Court ruling – Partial relief Punjab & Haryana High Court held deputation and absorption bad in law but declined to disturb service of deputationists (in post since 2005); restricted their seniority vis‑à‑vis direct recruits. (Paras 4–5)

7. Supreme Court – Appeals disposed Batch of appeals filed by direct recruits, deputationists, and State; Supreme Court examined legality of absorption, seniority disputes, and effect of High Court’s directions. (Paras 2, 5–13)

This case is significant because it clarifies the limits of deputation and absorption into another cadre, emphasising that direct recruit quota vacancies cannot be diverted for deputationists, and that seniority rights of direct recruits must be protected despite long service of absorbed officers.