RAM PARKASH MAKKAR versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 817 · Decided: 24-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM PARKASH MAKKAR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 24, 1992 
(KULDIP SINGH, N.M. KASLIWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN 
8 
REDDY. JJ.) 
Civil Service : 
Steno/Typist appointed in the Secretariat- Transfer to the Directorate C 
of Local Bodies as Assistant-Selection to the post of Personal Assistant and 
confmnation of probation in the Directorate-Whether employee was on 
deputation or on regular basis appointment in the Directorate. 
The appellant was appointed as a Steno/Typist on S.1.1973 in the 
Secretariat. On 8.1.86, bis senices were placed at the disposal of Direc- D 
torate of Local Bodies as an Assistant. 
While be was sening in the Directorate, a vacancy arose in the 
category of Persnnal Assistant. On the basis of shorthand/type test, the 
appellant was selected and was promoted as a Personal Assistant. On 
S.10.1988, the appellant was declared to have completed satisfactorily bis E 
probation in the post of Personal Assistant. 
In 1988-89, the appellant requested the Director, Local Bodies to 
absorb him in the Directorate. 
The Director in his letter dated 6.2.1989 to the Deputy Secretary to F 
the Government stated that the post of Personal Assistant in the Dlrec· 
torate being a temporary one, and because the appellant was a confirmed 
employee of the Secretariat, be could not be absorbed in the Directorate 
unless bis lien was terminated. 
The Secretary to the Government in reply stated that the lien of the 
appellant could be terminated from the Secretariat only as and when be 
is confirmed in the Directorate. 
G 
On 23.2.1989, the Director in his letter to the Chief Secretary re· 
quested him to terminate the lien of the appeallant to enable bis absorp· H 
817 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A tlon In the Directorate. 
On 24.10.1992, the Director reverted the appellant to his parent 
department with Immediate effect as his services were no longer required 
In the Directorate. 
B 
The appellant cballenget\ the order or Director in a writ petition In 
the High Court, contending that bis appointment as an Assistant In the 
Directorate was a regular appointment; that be was promoted as a Per· 
sonal Assistant on a regular basis in the Directorate; that his probation 
was also declared in the post or Personal Assistant; and that be could not 
C be reverted back to the Secretariat Service in the cln:umstances. 
The respondents contended that the appellant was merely deputed 
to serve in the Directorate; that the order dated 7.1.86 clearly recited that 
the appellant could be reverted back to the parent department as and when 
bis services were not required in the Directorate; that the very office of 
D Directorate of Local Bodies was temporary department and so were of the 
posts therein and that in such a situation, there could be no question of 
regular appointment. 
. 
The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the wiit petition, 
E against which the present appeal by special leave was Died. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. The fact that it is termed as an appointment on transfer 
basis coupled with the fact that bis probation was commenced and declared 
F to have been completed satisfactorily in the post of Assistant s•ows that It 
wasacaseofappolntmentbytransferandnotoneofdeputatlon. (822-H] 
1.2. The order does no doubt recite that bis appointment Is purely 
temporary and be Is liable to be reverted back to bis parent department 
G al any time. But this clause must be read along with other nrltals In the 
order and If so read, It must be understood as operative during the period 
or his probation only. Once bis probation was declared lo have been 
satisfactorily completed and • particularly after be was also promoted as 
Personal Assistant In the Department, and his probation commenced aud 
declared In such post also • It appears rather odd to say that he was only 
H on deputation In the Directorate. (823·8] 
·~ ' 
RAMPARKASH v. STATEOFHARYANA [JEEVANREDDY,J.] 
819 
1.3. At no stage did any one suggest that the appellant was on A 
deputation. II was put rorward as a derence ror the Orsi time, In the writ 
petition. [823·F) 
1.4. In the circumstances the appellant must be held lo have been 
appointed on regular basis as an Assistant In the Directorate and sub• 
sequently promoted as Personal Assistant. It Is not a case or deputation. 
B 
[824·C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3931 of 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.1992 of the Punjab

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.