https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458777 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. en-us Tue, 02 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:59:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458777 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458777