The Supreme Court has quashed the absorption of four Haryana government officers into the Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads), holding that their absorption was illegal, non est and void, and directed their repatriation to the Development and Panchayat Department.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a batch of appeals concerning the deputation, absorption and seniority of 4 Engineers in the PW(B&R) Department.
The dispute arose after the four officers, originally serving as Sub-Divisional Officers in the Development and Panchayat Department, were deputed to PW(B&R) and subsequently absorbed there as Assistant Engineers/Sub-Divisional Engineers. The Supreme Court examined the legality of both their deputation and subsequent absorption under the applicable service rules.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier found that there was no justification for the deputation and no special circumstances to invoke Rule 10 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, for their absorption. It had held that the absorption was contrary to the Rules, was not bona fide and amounted to ‘backdoor entry’, with political interference discernible from the record. However, despite these findings, the High Court permitted the four officers to continue in PW(B&R), considering their long service in the department, while restricting their seniority.
The Supreme Court did not sustain this protection. It held that the deputation of 2 Engineers were illegal, while that of other 2 Engineers was irregular. More importantly, it held that the absorption of all four officers in PW(B&R) was illegal, non est and void.
The Court accordingly set aside and quashed their absorption and held that their continuance in the PW(B&R) Department had become untenable. The four officers were directed to be repatriated to the Development and Panchayat Department, where their cadre and seniority would be determined by the competent authority.
Since the Court declared their absorption illegal and directed repatriation, it found it unnecessary to examine the separate dispute concerning their seniority under Rule 12(5) of the 1965 Rules.
The Supreme Court also rejected the rationale of protecting the appointments merely because the officers had served in PW(B&R) for several years. It noted that if the deputation and absorption were terminated as illegal, their lien in the substantive posts in their parent department would revive.
The Court consequently set aside the High Court’s decision permitting the four officers to continue in PW(B&R) and disposed of the batch of civil appeals accordingly.
