Supreme Court Quashes Politically Influenced Absorption of Four Haryana Engineers; Holds Long Service Cannot Cure Illegal Appointments, Orders Their Repatriation to Parent Department
Supreme Court Quashes Haryana PWD Absorption of Four Deputationists; Holds Illegal Appointment Cannot Become Valid Merely Because Employee Served for Years
Facts
The case arose from a long-running service dispute involving four officers — Pradeep Atri, Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia — originally appointed as Sub-Divisional Officers in Haryana’s Development and Panchayat Department. They were subsequently sent on deputation to the Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads) and eventually absorbed there as Assistant Engineers/Sub-Divisional Engineers.
Their entry into the PW(B&R) Department occurred while vacancies were earmarked for regular recruitment. In Pradeep Atri’s case, his deputation was initially described as a stop-gap arrangement pending recruitment of direct recruits. He later sought absorption. Significantly, Atri, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia participated in the regular recruitment process but were unsuccessful, while Praveen Chaudhary did not participate.
Over time, the four officers were absorbed into PW(B&R), and disputes arose regarding their seniority over engineers appointed through regular direct recruitment.
The record contained repeated recommendations and interventions by Ministers and MLAs concerning the deputation or absorption of the officers. Departmental authorities themselves had, at various stages, questioned the legality of these arrangements and recommended repatriation.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held on 15 March 2023 that the deputation and absorption were contrary to the 1965 Rules and amounted to backdoor entry influenced by political intervention. Nevertheless, because the officers had served for many years and had lost their lien in their parent department, the High Court permitted them to continue in PW(B&R), while denying them seniority over specified direct recruits and promotees.
Both sides challenged different parts of that decision before the Supreme Court.
Issues
The Supreme Court formulated three principal questions:
- Whether the deputation of the four officers from the Development and Panchayat Department to PW(B&R) was legal, valid and justified.
- Whether their subsequent absorption as Assistant Engineers/Sub-Divisional Engineers in PW(B&R) was legally valid.
- If the deputation and absorption were valid, whether the seniority assigned to them by the State or subsequently modified by the High Court was legally sustainable.
The central statutory question was whether circumstances existed to invoke Rule 10 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, PWD (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, permitting appointment by transfer in “special circumstances”.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The direct recruits argued that once the High Court found the deputation and absorption illegal, it could not simultaneously allow the four officers to continue merely on sympathetic considerations.
They stressed that three of the officers had unsuccessfully participated in the regular recruitment examination and the fourth had not participated at all. Allowing them to enter the same cadre through absorption effectively permitted them to achieve indirectly what they could not obtain through regular recruitment.
They further contended that public appointments must comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, ensuring equality, transparency and equal opportunity. Political influence and backdoor appointments were fundamentally inconsistent with these constitutional requirements.
According to them, Rule 6 contemplated direct recruitment and promotion as the regular modes of recruitment. Appointment by transfer under Rule 10 was exceptional and could be exercised only where genuine “special circumstances” existed. Mere staff shortage did not satisfy that standard.
They accordingly sought termination of the illegal appointments or repatriation of the officers to their parent department.
Respondents’ Arguments
The four officers and the State defended the deputation and absorption primarily on the basis of Rules 10 and 12 of the 1965 Rules.
They argued that Rule 10 expressly recognises appointment by transfer and therefore absorption was itself a permissible mode of entry into the service when special circumstances existed.
The asserted special circumstances included an acute shortage of Sub-Divisional Engineers, difficulty in immediately completing regular recruitment, the officers’ engineering qualifications, their experience while serving on deputation, satisfactory performance and the administrative requirement for engineers.
They also emphasised that the Haryana Public Service Commission had approved the absorption.
The State disputed the allegation that political recommendations dictated the ultimate administrative decision, contending that the competent authorities independently considered the relevant material before approving absorption.
On seniority, the officers relied upon Rule 12(5), contending that persons appointed by transfer could receive appropriate seniority and that direct recruits could not ordinarily claim seniority from dates before they entered the cadre.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court examined the 1965 Rules as statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
The Court distinguished regular recruitment under Rule 6 from the exceptional power of appointment by transfer under Rule 10.
Crucially, the expression “special circumstances” could not be treated as an unrestricted administrative discretion. It contemplated something exceptional or out of the ordinary.
The Court explained that Rule 10 was intended for a genuine public-service exigency which could not await ordinary direct recruitment or promotion—for example, where specialised expertise, qualifications or skills were immediately necessary for a particular project or administrative requirement.
Therefore, ordinary staffing shortages, possession of an M.Tech degree, satisfactory work performance or the disadvantage an officer might suffer upon returning to his parent cadre were insufficient.
The Court particularly noted that Rule 6(3) itself provided a mechanism for temporarily dealing with vacancies pending availability of direct recruits. This weakened the justification that staff shortage required deputation and permanent absorption of these officers.
Precedent Analysis
The Supreme Court relied significantly upon the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The principle applied was that an appointment fundamentally contrary to statutory recruitment rules constitutes an illegality, rather than a mere procedural irregularity. Passage of time, long continuation in service or sympathetic considerations cannot convert such an illegal appointment into a valid one.
The Court also referred to Ramlal Khurana v. State of Punjab, (1989) 4 SCC 99 while examining the officers’ lien. It explained that ordinarily a government servant cannot simultaneously hold liens in two separate cadres. However, where the subsequent absorption itself is terminated as illegal, the officers’ lien in their substantive parent posts would revive.
The direct recruits had additionally relied upon M.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav, (2007) 8 SCC 264, invoking the principle that persons entering public service through the backdoor cannot claim judicial protection merely because they have continued for a considerable period.
The judgment also considered arguments based on K.S. Brar, but distinguished that precedent because the validity of appointment by transfer in the absence of special circumstances had not actually been adjudicated there, the challenge having been given up.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court found the process followed for the four officers fundamentally inconsistent with the statutory recruitment framework.
In Pradeep Atri’s case, the Court considered it particularly significant that he had failed in the regular recruitment process for the same post but nevertheless obtained the position through absorption. The Court characterised this as achieving indirectly what he could not achieve directly and treated his absorption as a clear case of backdoor entry.
Praveen Chaudhary’s case was similarly affected by political intervention and absence of genuine special circumstances. The Court specifically rejected the contention that shortage of officers by itself constituted a “special circumstance” under Rule 10.
For Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia, the purported special circumstances were their M.Tech qualifications, regular recruitment into their original department and satisfactory work in PW(B&R). The Court held that these considerations were insufficiently exceptional to satisfy Rule 10.
It also found political intervention and favouritism evident in the absorption process. The Court held that satisfactory performance, postgraduate qualifications and the possibility of becoming junior-most upon repatriation could not transform an otherwise ordinary situation into the “special circumstances” required by the statutory rules.
The Supreme Court therefore agreed with the High Court that all four absorptions were illegal.
However, it disagreed sharply with the High Court’s decision to protect their continued service.
Once an appointment was held illegal and void from inception, the High Court could not validate its practical consequences simply because the officers had served for approximately 18 years. The Court drew a clear distinction between an irregularity, which may in appropriate circumstances be capable of correction, and an illegality, which cannot be cured merely by passage of time or sympathy.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ultimately held:
- The deputation of Pradeep Atri and Praveen Chaudhary was illegal.
- The deputation of Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia was irregular.
- The subsequent absorption of all four officers in PW(B&R) was illegal, non-est and void.
- Their absorption orders were therefore set aside and quashed.
- Their continued deputation in PW(B&R) consequently became untenable.
- All four officers were directed to be repatriated to the Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana.
- Their cadre position and seniority in the parent department were directed to be fixed immediately above those officers who had originally been junior to them.
- Since their absorption itself was void and they were being repatriated, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to determine their seniority in PW(B&R) under Rule 12(5).
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the portion of the High Court’s judgment that had permitted the four officers to continue in PW(B&R) despite declaring their appointments illegal. All civil appeals were disposed of in these terms.
Case Details
Case: Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana (with connected civil appeals)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: 2026 INSC 878; Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12017–12018 of 2023 and connected SLPs
Judge: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan; judgment authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Date: 18 August 2026
Result: Absorption of all four officers quashed as illegal, non-est and void; officers ordered to be repatriated to their parent Development and Panchayat Department. High Court’s protection of their continued service in PW(B&R) set aside.
