Person on Deputation Has No Right to Continue in Deputed Post; Repatriation to Fill Critical Vacancies Justified: Karnataka High Court

Doctors on Deputation Have No Inherent Right to Continue in Post, Rules Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru : The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has held that government employees on deputation do not possess a vested right to continue in their deputed posts, especially when their parent department requires their services to fill critical vacancies. A division bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K. V. Aravind dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by several senior specialist doctors challenging their repatriation from the Medical Education Department to their parent Health and Family Welfare Services Department.

The court upheld the orders of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), which had earlier dismissed the doctors' applications against the state's repatriation notification.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, all senior specialists from the Health and Family Welfare Services Department, were sent on deputation to various hospitals and medical colleges under the Medical Education Department in September 2023. In January 2025, the state government issued a notification repatriating them to their parent department to fill a large number of "critical vacancies."

The doctors challenged this move, first before the KSAT and then, upon dismissal, before the High Court. They argued that the repatriation was premature and violated the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs), which prescribe a minimum deputation period of three years. They also alleged procedural irregularities in the subsequent counseling process for their new postings.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Petitioners' Contentions:

  • Premature Repatriation: The doctors' primary argument, led by Advocate Sri. Vijaya Kumar, was that their repatriation was illegal as they had not completed the minimum three-year tenure of deputation stipulated under Rule 50 of the KCSRs.
  • Flawed Counseling: They contended that the list of vacant posts provided during the mandatory counseling was incomplete and did not display all available critical vacancies, thereby limiting their choices unfairly.
  • Need for Services: It was also submitted that the medical colleges where they were serving on deputation had requested the government to continue their services due to a dearth of specialist doctors.

• State's Response:

  • Fixed Deputation Term: Additional Advocate General Sri. Reuben Jacob, representing the state, countered that the deputation order itself specified a tenure of "one year or until further orders, whichever is earlier." Since the doctors had completed over a year, the repatriation was justified.
  • No Right to Deputation: The AAG firmly argued that deputation is not a right, and a deputationist cannot demand to continue in the borrowed post. The parent department retains the authority to recall its employees based on administrative exigencies.
  • Public Interest: The state emphasized that the repatriation was a necessary administrative decision driven by the urgent need to fill 606 critical vacancies within the Health and Family Welfare Services Department, which was facing a significant shortage of medical officers. The state assured the court that all critical vacancies were made available during the counseling held on September 8, 2025.

Court's Rationale and Judgment

The High Court decisively sided with the state, finding no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders. The bench made several key observations:

"When the petitioners are deputed indicating the tenure and when they have accepted such tenure of deputation without any protest, Rule 50 [of KCSRs] would not come to their assistance... the petitioners would not possess any right to seek continuation of their services on deputation."

The court underscored that the state's need to fill critical vacancies in public health institutions was a paramount consideration. It noted, "It is for the State which is the Recruiting Authority/Appointing Authority to utilize the services of such doctors," especially when there is a dearth of medical officers in the parent department.

Addressing the allegations about the counseling process, the court acknowledged the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare Services, which affirmed that all 606 critical vacancies were displayed. The bench opined that it could not act as an appellate authority to scrutinize the minutiae of vacancy lists under Article 226.

Final Decision and Its Implications

The High Court disposed of all writ petitions, effectively clearing the way for the state to proceed with posting the repatriated doctors to fill critical vacancies. The court did, however, point out that the doctors could pursue individual grievances through the appellate mechanism provided under Rule 18 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) Rules, 2025.

This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that deputation is a temporary arrangement subject to administrative needs and does not confer any indefeasible right on the employee to remain in the deputed position beyond the specified term or against the parent department's recall order.