The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, has reaffirmed the primacy of statutory recruitment rules in service matters. In a significant ruling, the Tribunal dismissed a transfer application seeking permanent absorption in the Department of Urology, holding that mere possession of qualifications or temporary utilization of services does not confer a legal right to bypass the prescribed recruitment process through the Public Service Commission. This judgment underscores the principle that administrative convenience cannot override statutory recruitment mechanisms, even where the employee possesses the requisite qualifications and has been performing the duties of the desired post for several years.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Dr. Raja Langer, a medical professional with an MBBS degree, postgraduate qualification in General Surgery, and super-specialization in Urology (Diplomate National Board in Urology), sought permanent absorption as Lecturer in the Department of Urology at the Super Specialty Hospital, Jammu. He contended that his services had been utilized in the Urology Department since 2015 and that he was similarly situated to Dr. Rahul Gupta, who had been absorbed in the same department through lateral entry. The applicant argued that denial of absorption was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Key Facts
- The applicant was appointed as Medical Officer in 2001 through the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission.
- He acquired a super-specialty qualification in Urology in 2012.
- From 2015 onwards, his services were utilized in the Department of Urology at the Super Specialty Hospital, Jammu, where he performed OPD and surgical duties independently.
- On 08.03.2019, he was selected and appointed as Lecturer in Surgery vide Government Order No. 283-HME of 2019, pursuant to a selection conducted by the Public Service Commission.
- Despite his substantive appointment in Surgery, his services continued to be utilized in Urology vide communication dated 25.09.2019 and posting order dated 30.09.2019.
- The applicant relied on Government Order No. 131-HME of 2013 dated 19.02.2013, wherein Dr. Rahul Gupta, another super-specialist in Urology, was absorbed in the Super Specialty Hospital through lateral entry.
- The applicant claimed that a post of Lecturer in Urology was lying vacant and that his absorption would not require transfer of any post, unlike Dr. Rahul Gupta’s case.
Procedural History
- 2018: The applicant filed SWP No. 1165/2018 seeking permanent absorption in Urology, which was withdrawn after his appointment as Lecturer in Surgery.
- 2019: The applicant filed SWP No. 4135/2019 before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, seeking:
- Permanent absorption as Lecturer in Urology on the analogy of Dr. Rahul Gupta;
- Permission to work against the post of Lecturer in Urology during pendency;
- Restraint on filling the post of Lecturer in Urology.
- 16.12.2025: The matter was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, and registered as TA No. 847/2020.
- 22.05.2026: The Tribunal pronounced its judgment dismissing the transfer application.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought the following reliefs:
- Permanent absorption as Lecturer in Urology in the Super Specialty Hospital, Jammu, on the analogy of Dr. Rahul Gupta;
- Permission to continue working against the post of Lecturer in Urology during the pendency of the petition;
- Restraint on the respondents from filling the post of Lecturer in Urology either substantively or on academic arrangement basis.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Tribunal was whether an employee, who was substantively appointed as Lecturer in Surgery through the Public Service Commission, could claim permanent absorption as Lecturer in Urology merely on the grounds that:
- He possessed the requisite super-specialty qualification in Urology;
- His services had been utilized in the Urology Department for several years;
- Another employee (Dr. Rahul Gupta) had been absorbed in Urology through lateral entry in the past.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant contended that he possessed the requisite qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Urology and had been performing the duties of a Urologist since 2015.
- He argued that his absorption would not amount to backdoor entry, as he had already been selected as Lecturer in Surgery through the Public Service Commission.
- Reliance was placed on the case of Dr. Rahul Gupta, who was absorbed in Urology through lateral entry, to claim parity.
- It was submitted that denial of absorption was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- The applicant asserted that a post of Lecturer in Urology was lying vacant and that his absorption would not require transfer of any post.
For the Respondents
- The respondents contended that the applicant was selected and appointed as Lecturer in Surgery through the Public Service Commission and that he accepted the appointment without demur.
- It was argued that the applicant never participated in the selection process for Lecturer in Urology and, therefore, could not claim absorption in that post as a matter of right.
- The respondents relied on Government Order No. 181-HME of 2011 dated 15.03.2011 (Recruitment Rules for Super Specialties) read with Government Order No. 453-HME of 2012 dated 16.07.2012, which prescribed 100% direct recruitment through the Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer in Urology.
- It was submitted that the post of Lecturer in Urology could not be filled by transfer, deputation, absorption, or lateral entry, and that the applicant’s substantive appointment remained in the Department of Surgery.
- The respondents distinguished the case of Dr. Rahul Gupta, arguing that his absorption was an exception made to make the Super Specialty Hospital functional and could not be treated as a precedent.
- Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K and others, wherein the Court directed adherence to recruitment rules and cautioned against relaxing statutory recruitment mechanisms.
- It was further argued that an employee cannot dictate posting in a particular department as a matter of right and that administrative utilization of services does not confer a legal right to permanent absorption.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing service matters, particularly the interplay between statutory recruitment rules and administrative convenience.
"Mere possession of qualification or utilization of services in a particular department does not create a vested right to be permanently absorbed in that department, particularly when the post is governed by specific recruitment rules."
The Tribunal observed that the post of Lecturer in Urology was governed by Government Order No. 181-HME of 2011, which prescribed 100% direct recruitment through the Public Service Commission. The applicant had not been selected for this post through the prescribed recruitment process, and his substantive appointment remained in the Department of Surgery.
The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s argument that his absorption would not amount to backdoor entry, holding:
"Selection for one post or discipline cannot automatically be treated as selection for another post or discipline. Lecturer in Surgery and Lecturer in Urology are distinct posts governed by different qualifications and different recruitment rules."
On the issue of parity with Dr. Rahul Gupta, the Tribunal held that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality. Even if an irregularity was committed in one case, the same could not be directed to be repeated in another case, particularly when it was contrary to the recruitment rules. The Tribunal emphasized:
"Equality clause cannot be invoked to perpetuate an action contrary to rules."
The Tribunal also addressed the applicant’s contention that his temporary utilization in Urology should ripen into a legal right. It held that administrative deployment or temporary utilization of services cannot confer a legal right to permanent absorption, especially when the post requires recruitment through the Public Service Commission.
"An employee cannot claim posting in a particular department or discipline as a matter of right. The employer is competent to utilize the services of its employees in accordance with administrative exigencies, subject to rules."
The Tribunal further noted that granting the relief sought would amount to filling the post of Lecturer in Urology without following the prescribed recruitment process, which would be impermissible. It reiterated that courts and tribunals cannot issue mandamus directing authorities to act contrary to the rules.
The Verdict
The Tribunal dismissed Transfer Application No. 847/2020, holding that the applicant had failed to establish any enforceable legal right for permanent absorption as Lecturer in Urology. The reliefs sought were found to be contrary to the applicable recruitment rules. However, the Tribunal clarified that the dismissal would not preclude the applicant from applying for the post of Lecturer in Urology if and when it was advertised by the Public Service Commission. His candidature would then be considered strictly in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and eligibility criteria. No order as to costs was passed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Recruitment Rules Are Non-Negotiable
- Statutory recruitment mechanisms cannot be bypassed: The judgment reaffirms that posts requiring direct recruitment through the Public Service Commission cannot be filled by way of transfer, deputation, absorption, or lateral entry, even if the employee possesses the requisite qualifications and has been performing the duties of the post.
- Administrative convenience ≠ Legal right: Temporary utilization of services in a particular department does not confer a legal right to permanent absorption. Courts will not intervene to direct absorption where the recruitment rules prescribe a specific mode of appointment.
Parity Claims Must Be Grounded in Law
- Negative equality is impermissible: The principle of Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim parity where the earlier case involved an irregularity or exception contrary to the rules. Equality cannot be used to perpetuate illegality.
- Distinct posts require distinct selection processes: Selection for one post (e.g., Lecturer in Surgery) does not automatically entitle an employee to another post (e.g., Lecturer in Urology), even if the employee possesses the qualifications for the latter. Each post must be filled in accordance with its own recruitment rules.
Employees Cannot Dictate Postings
- No vested right to specific posting: An employee cannot claim posting in a particular department or discipline as a matter of right. The employer retains the discretion to deploy employees in accordance with administrative exigencies, subject to the rules.
- Promotional prospects remain protected: The applicant’s promotional prospects in his substantive department (Surgery) remained unaffected. The judgment clarifies that employees desiring a different posting must participate in the prescribed selection process for that post.
