Article 309 recruitment rules prevail over draft rules; deputation and ad hoc promotion create no enforceable right.

Recruitment rules framed under Article 309 continue to operate until validly amended, repealed or replaced, so draft rules and executive communications cannot override the existing statutory framework. An ad hoc promotion made under unimplemented draft rules does not create a legal right to displace the regular recruitment process. A deputationist appointed temporarily pending regular selection has no indefeasible right to absorption or continued occupation beyond the governing service arrangement, and repatriation will not be interfered with merely because regular selection remains pending. The regular selection process was directed to be completed expeditiously in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a deputationist appointed to the post of Chief Engineer on short-term deputation pending regular selection could be repatriated before the regular process was completed. (ii) Whether draft recruitment rules and an ad hoc promotion made under them could override the existing recruitment rules framed under the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether a deputationist appointed to the post of Chief Engineer on short-term deputation pending regular selection could be repatriated before the regular process was completed.

Analysis: The appointment was on short-term deputation/temporary basis pending selection of a regular incumbent under the existing recruitment rules. A deputationist ordinarily has no indefeasible right to absorption, but where the appointment is for a specified tenure or pending regular selection, the incumbent is entitled to continue according to the terms of the appointment unless valid grounds justify curtailment. The challenge to the repatriation and the competing claim to continue in the post were considered on the basis of the service rules and the nature of deputation.

Conclusion: The deputationist had no enforceable right to insist on continued occupation of the post beyond the governing service arrangement, and the challenge to the repatriation did not succeed.

Issue (ii): Whether draft recruitment rules and an ad hoc promotion made under them could override the existing recruitment rules framed under the Constitution.

Analysis: Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India continue to operate until repealed, replaced, or amended. Draft rules cannot displace existing statutory recruitment rules when the latter are still in force. Executive action or a government request cannot substitute for amendment of the rules. The Court also noticed that the ad hoc promotion was based on draft rules that had not been given effect at the relevant time, and that the regular selection process had to be completed in accordance with law. The complaint based on denial of hearing under Rule 12 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 was not accepted as a ground to interfere in the absence of that specific contention being pursued effectively before the High Court.

Conclusion: Draft rules could not supersede the existing recruitment rules, and the ad hoc promotion based on them did not confer a legal right to disturb the process adopted by the Tribunal and the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeals was upheld, with a direction that the regular selection process be completed expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment rules framed under Article 309 remain operative until validly amended or replaced, and draft rules or executive communications cannot override them; deputation or ad hoc arrangements do not create an enforceable right contrary to the governing service rules.

---