The Supreme Court has reaffirmed an important principle governing public employment: an appointment that is illegal from its inception cannot become lawful merely because the employee has continued in service for several years.
In a significant judgment concerning the deputation and subsequent absorption of four officers in the Haryana Public Works Department (Building & Roads), the Supreme Court held that illegality cannot be cured by the passage of time or by taking a sympathetic view of an employee’s long service.
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the deputation and absorption of the concerned officers in the PW(B&R) Department could not be sustained in law. The Court directed that the officers be repatriated to their parent department, with their cadre and seniority to be determined in accordance with the applicable rules.
The ruling once again highlights the distinction between an illegal appointment and an irregular appointment, while reaffirming the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006).
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned four officers—Pradeep Atri, Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia—who were initially serving in the Development and Panchayat Department of Haryana.
The officers were subsequently sent on deputation to the Public Works Department (Building & Roads). They were later absorbed into the PW(B&R) Department as Assistant Engineers/Sub-Divisional Engineers.
The manner in which their deputation and subsequent absorption took place became the subject matter of litigation. The record before the Court also indicated allegations of political interference in the process.
An important aspect of the controversy was that three of the officers had failed the direct recruitment examination for the posts which they subsequently obtained through absorption. The fourth officer, Praveen Chaudhary, had not appeared for the examination.
Despite these circumstances, the officers continued to serve in the PW(B&R) Department for a considerable period.
High Court Took a Sympathetic View
The Punjab & Haryana High Court had questioned the legality of the deputation and absorption process. However, it declined to disturb the officers’ continuance in the PW(B&R) Department, principally because they had already rendered more than 18 years of service since 2005.
The High Court was concerned that terminating or disturbing their service after such a long period would cause considerable hardship.
Consequently, although the High Court found the deputation and absorption to be legally unsustainable, it did not order their repatriation to the parent department. It also did not grant them the seniority claimed by them.
The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court: Illegality Cannot Be Cured by Lapse of Time
The Supreme Court disagreed with the approach adopted by the High Court.
The Court emphasized that where an appointment is contrary to the governing recruitment rules, the defect is not merely procedural. Such an appointment is illegal from the very beginning.
The Court explained that illegality is fundamentally different from irregularity. An irregularity may, depending upon the circumstances and applicable rules, be capable of correction. An illegality, however, cannot be transformed into a lawful appointment simply because the employee has remained in service for many years.
The Supreme Court therefore held that long continuance in service cannot provide a legal foundation for an appointment which was void from inception.
The Court relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which had laid down important principles concerning appointments made in violation of statutory recruitment rules.
The Supreme Court made it clear that courts cannot regularise an illegal appointment merely on humanitarian or sympathetic considerations arising from the length of service.
Deputation and Absorption Were Not Sustainable
The Court separately examined the legality of the deputation and absorption of the four officers.
It concluded that the deputation of Pradeep Atri and Praveen Chaudhary was illegal, whereas the deputation of Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia was irregular.
However, the Court found the absorption of all four officers in the PW(B&R) Department to be illegal, non est and void.
As a consequence, the Court quashed their absorption and directed their repatriation to the Development and Panchayat Department.
Their cadre position and seniority are to be determined in accordance with the applicable service rules.
Shortage of Officers Not a “Special Circumstance”
The State sought to defend the absorption by relying upon Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules.
According to the State, the provision permitted appointment by transfer in special circumstances. The shortage of officers in the department, along with the officers’ qualifications and performance, was relied upon to justify the decision.
The Supreme Court rejected this justification.
The Court held that shortage of officers by itself cannot be treated as a special circumstance for invoking Rule 10.
According to the Court, the provision was intended to address genuine and exceptional situations where the normal recruitment process could not adequately meet an immediate public-service requirement.
For example, a particular project might require persons possessing specialised qualifications, technical expertise, specific skills or exceptional talent. Such circumstances could potentially justify resort to a special mechanism contemplated by the rules.
But ordinary administrative difficulties such as shortage of personnel cannot be used to bypass the prescribed recruitment process.
Recruitment Rules Cannot Be Circumvented Through Absorption
The Supreme Court’s reasoning also underscores a broader principle of public employment law.
Where the statutory rules prescribe specific modes of recruitment—such as direct recruitment or promotion—the authorities cannot circumvent those requirements by adopting another route merely to accommodate particular individuals.
The Court observed that Rule 10 contemplated appointment by transfer for a genuine special situation or exigency of public service. It was not intended to become an alternative route for appointing persons who had not qualified through the prescribed recruitment process.
The Court therefore refused to accept the argument that absorption could be used as a method to overcome the requirements of the regular recruitment rules.
Political Interference Condemned
The Supreme Court also took serious note of the allegations and circumstances indicating blatant political interference in the deputation and absorption process.
Public appointments are required to be governed by statutory rules, merit, eligibility and institutional requirements. Any attempt to use political influence to circumvent established recruitment procedures undermines the integrity of public administration.
The judgment consequently sends a strong message that administrative authorities cannot bypass recruitment rules by subsequently relying upon the employee’s long service to defend an otherwise unlawful appointment.
Long Service Does Not Create a Right to Continue
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is its treatment of long service.
The Court rejected the proposition that an employee acquires a right to continue in a post merely because the employee has remained there for a substantial period.
Duration of service cannot cure the foundational illegality of an appointment.
The passage of time may create practical or humanitarian considerations, but such considerations cannot override statutory recruitment rules.
The Court was therefore of the view that the High Court had committed a serious error by allowing the officers to continue in the PW(B&R) Department even after holding their deputation and absorption to be legally defective.
Key Takeaway
The judgment in Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. reinforces a fundamental principle of service jurisprudence:
An illegal appointment cannot be regularised merely because the employee has served for a long period.
The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between irregularity and illegality. While an irregularity may sometimes be capable of correction under the applicable legal framework, an appointment made in direct violation of statutory recruitment rules cannot be validated through the passage of time.
The ruling is particularly significant for public authorities because it cautions against using deputation, absorption or appointment by transfer as mechanisms for bypassing prescribed recruitment procedures.
The decision also makes clear that administrative convenience, shortage of personnel, qualifications or satisfactory performance cannot automatically constitute the “special circumstances” required for invoking a special recruitment provision.
Ultimately, public employment must conform to the governing rules from the beginning. Long service may create sympathy, but it cannot convert an unlawful appointment into a lawful one.
Case Details
Case Name: Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date of Judgment: 18 August 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 822