Deputation and permanent absorption: no vested right to compel DPC or completion of an inchoate absorption process.

Under the governing recruitment rules, deputation and permanent absorption were both permissible, but the initiation of absorption did not create a vested or indefeasible right to demand completion of that process. The employer retained executive discretion to decide the mode of recruitment and whether to proceed with absorption or deputation, subject only to the requirement that the choice not be arbitrary or mala fide. Because the employee had already been relieved from deputation and repatriated to the parent department, he could not insist on convening the DPC or compel permanent absorption. The challenge therefore failed, and the court distinguished precedent involving inaction while the employee remained on deputation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, while serving on deputation and after having opted for permanent absorption under the applicable recruitment rules, could compel the respondents to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee and complete the absorption process despite the respondents' decision to switch to deputation for filling the post.

Analysis: The applicable recruitment framework permitted appointment to the post by deputation and also contemplated absorption of deputationists subject to the rules and approval structure. However, the Court held that the mere initiation of an absorption process does not create an indefeasible right to insist that the process must be carried to its logical end. Filling posts, selecting the mode of recruitment, and deciding whether to proceed with absorption or deputation are matters within executive policy, and judicial interference is warranted only if the decision is arbitrary. The petitioner, having been relieved from deputation and repatriated to the parent department, could not claim a vested right to insist upon convening the DPC for absorption. The Court also distinguished the precedent relied upon by the petitioner, noting that it turned on inaction while the employee remained on deputation, whereas here the petitioner no longer held deputation status when relief was sought.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no enforceable right to require the respondents to convene the DPC or complete permanent absorption, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee on deputation has no vested right to insist on permanent absorption or on continuation of an inchoate absorption process, and the employer may validly choose the mode of recruitment under the governing rules if the decision is bona fide and non-arbitrary.

---