Legality of Deputation and Absorption in NOIDA: Shripal Bhati vs. State of U.P.

The case of Shripal Bhati vs. State of U.P. revolves around a dispute regarding the appointment and absorption of an officer on deputation in the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). The Supreme Court was called upon to examine whether the recruitment of an officer on deputation and his subsequent absorption was in accordance with the NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981.

Background of the Case

The appellants, Shripal Bhati and another, were posted as Assistant Project Engineers (Electrical) in NOIDA. They challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 4, who was originally a Sub-Divisional Officer with U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., as a Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA on deputation and his subsequent absorption in that position.

The U.P. State Government had issued a letter on February 13, 2014, instructing NOIDA to appoint Respondent No. 4 on deputation for a period of three years. NOIDA complied and issued the appointment order on February 19, 2014. Subsequently, on May 7, 2015, Respondent No. 4 was absorbed into the NOIDA cadre permanently.

The appellants challenged both the deputation and absorption before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the appointment violated the NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981. The High Court dismissed their petition on February 8, 2017, leading them to appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues and Proceedings

The key legal issues raised before the Supreme Court included:

• Whether the deputation and absorption of Respondent No. 4 were permissible under NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981.
• Whether the appellants, as Assistant Project Engineers, had the right to challenge the appointment of a higher-ranking officer.
• Whether the absorption of a deputationist violated the principles of fairness and eligibility criteria.

Arguments of the Appellants (Shripal Bhati & Another)

The appellants presented the following arguments:

• The NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981, mandated that 66% of Group ‘A’ posts (including Project Engineer) be filled through direct recruitment and 34% by promotion. The appointment of Respondent No. 4 on deputation violated this provision.
• Regulation 16(1)(c) of the NOIDA Service Regulations does allow recruitment through deputation, but only if it does not contradict the primary method of recruitment.
• The appellants, as Assistant Project Engineers, were eligible for promotion to the post of Project Engineer and were deprived of their legitimate career progression due to Respondent No. 4’s absorption.
• The deputation and absorption were carried out arbitrarily, without following the proper recruitment process.

Arguments of the Respondents (State of U.P. & NOIDA)

The respondents countered with the following arguments:

• Regulation 16(1)(c) of the NOIDA Service Regulations clearly allows recruitment by deputation, re-employment, or contractual basis, making the deputation of Respondent No. 4 valid.
• The absorption of Respondent No. 4 was done in accordance with U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984, which allows government employees to be absorbed into public sector bodies.
• The appellants lacked the necessary eight years of experience as Assistant Project Engineers, making them ineligible for promotion to Project Engineer at the time of Respondent No. 4’s appointment.
• The appointment was approved by the State Government, and the decision was made in the public interest.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzed the following key issues:

• Whether Regulation 16(1)(c) of NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981, permitted deputation and absorption.
• Whether the appellants had the legal standing to challenge the appointment.
• Whether the absorption of Respondent No. 4 was legally valid.

After reviewing the submissions and applicable laws, the Court made the following findings:

• Deputation is a valid mode of recruitment under NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981.
• The State Government has the power to approve deputation and absorption under the U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984.
• The appellants were not eligible for promotion at the time of the appointment.
• There was no evidence to prove that the appointment was made in bad faith or to deprive the appellants of their career opportunities.

Verbatim Court Findings

The Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court’s ruling, stated:

“Regulation 16(1)(c) explicitly provides for recruitment through deputation. The contention that deputation contradicts the recruitment percentage rule is misconceived, as both provisions exist harmoniously within the Regulations.”

Additionally, the Court observed:

“The appellants were not eligible for promotion to the post of Project Engineer at the time of appointment of Respondent No. 4. Therefore, their claim of being deprived of promotion opportunities is not legally sustainable.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents and upheld the High Court’s decision:

• The appointment of Respondent No. 4 on deputation was valid.
• The absorption of Respondent No. 4 was legal under U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984.
• The appellants had no legal right to challenge the appointment as they were not eligible for promotion at the time.
• The appeal was dismissed.

Final Verdict: Appeal dismissed, deputation and absorption upheld.

Petitioner Name: Shripal Bhati.
Respondent Name: State of U.P. & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 29-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shripal Bhati vs State of U.P. & Othe Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category