Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a Project Engineer’s deputation and absorption in NOIDA. Reading the service regulations as a whole preserved deputation as a recruitment source; an unimplemented 2005 policy did not displace them. Although the deputationist was not a government servant, the separate electricity-board absorption regulations supported the arrangement. The challengers also lacked the requisite promotion experience at the relevant dates and had no actionable grievance.
Issues
- Whether NOIDA’s service regulations permitted recruitment by deputation and subsequent absorption notwithstanding promotion quotas and the proposed 2005 policy.
- Whether the appellants could challenge the appointment when they were ineligible for promotion at the relevant dates.
Provisions considered
- Regulations 2, 16 and 80, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations, 1981A harmonious reading recognised deputation and absorption, preserved the operative recruitment scheme and accounted for State directions and other applicable law. (¶¶ 11, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22)
- Section 5, Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976The Authority’s appointment powers were subject to State control; no order restricting the relevant deputation power was established. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Held
- Regulation 16(2)’s recruitment percentages could not be read in isolation to nullify deputation expressly authorised by Regulation 16(1)(c). The 2005 promotion policy was never implemented because it conflicted with the existing regulations, which remained unamended. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14, 15)
- Regulation 2 contemplated absorption of deputationists. Although the 1984 rules concerned government servants, the statutory 1987 electricity-board regulations enabled corresponding absorption of corporation employees; the statutory scheme and State directions supported this appointment and absorption. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Neither appellant had eight years’ qualifying experience as Assistant Project Engineer when the deputation occurred in 2014 or absorption in 2015. Their promotion rights were therefore not infringed and they lacked standing for this challenge. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- The deputationist had been relieved and his lien with the parent organisation had ceased. The Court also considered the injustice of leaving an absorbed employee with neither organisation, applying Jamil Ahmed. (¶ 26)
Result
Appeal dismissed, upholding the deputation and absorption. No order as to costs.