In Brief
Four employees from different state departments were selected and appointed to the newly created post of District Minority Welfare Officer in 1997 through a formal selection process, labeled as "deputation." After new service rules were framed in 2001 providing for recruitment only via public commission or promotion, the employees sought absorption. The High Court rejected their claims, treating them as deputationists. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that employees appointed through selection prior to the service rules' coming into force acquire substantive appointment rights and cannot be denied absorption based on rules made retrospectively. The Court distinguished between true deputation and pre-rule appointments, emphasizing that the grandfather clause in Rule 3(h) protected such prior appointees.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.