(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

                          "(a) to call for the records on the file of R2 in connection with the circular No. A-15/01/2018/DRAT, dated 27.12.2018 and quash the same in so far as it does not include the name of the applicant in the common seniority list for the post of Assistant in DRAT Chennai and DRTs under its jurisdiction

                          (b) to call for the records on the file of R3 in connection with the office No.5-21/2008- DRT/MDU, dated 04.03.2019 repatriating the applicant from the post of Recovery Inspector to the post of Court Master, since re-designated as Court Master and quash the same and declare that the applicant continues to be appointed as Recovery Inspector, since re-designated as Assistant.

                          (c) to declare that the applicant is deemed to have been appointed as Assistant under the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Debts Recovery Tribunals at Ernakulam, Chennai, Coimbatore and Bangalore Recruitment Rules 2018, as an Assistant as having been in service of the DRT, Madurai prior to its initial constitution.

                          (d) to pass any other order or direction or grant any other relief, in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."

2. The facts which give rise to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The Applicant was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Border Roads Organisation (GREF), Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, on 01.01.2001. Subsequently, he joined the Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles, Coimbatore, through direct recruitment by SSC, as a Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' on 10.08.2005, with protection of pay and service. Thereafter, he proceeded on deputation to the post of Lower Division Clerk at DRT, Madurai--an analogous post--with effect from 08.09.2009. On 06.03.2012, the Applicant was promoted to the next higher grade of Court Master. As DRT, Madurai did not have Recruitment Rules for higher posts, including that of Recovery Inspector, the Applicant was appointed as Recovery Inspector on a deputation basis for a period of three years from 04.03.2016. In the meantime, on 08.06.2018, the 1st Respondent issued executive instructions merging the post of Recovery Inspector with that of Assistant, and the post of Court Master with that of Upper Division Clerk.

On the same date, common Recruitment Rules for the cadres of DRAT, Chennai and all DRTs were notified. However, on 04.03.2019, the Applicant was repatriated from the post of Recovery Inspector to the post of Court Master (redesignated as UDC). The Applicant is aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in not considering him as having been appointed to the post of Assistant under the new Recruitment Rules, despite the protection extended to employees in service prior to the promulgation of the new rules. Meanwhile, other similarly placed Recovery Inspectors were treated as Assistants, resulting in discrimination. As the impugned orders were passed despite representations made by the Applicant, he has been constrained to file the present Original Application.

3. The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the Applicant is that the impugned orders are unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the Respondents erred in not treating the Applicant's appointment as Recovery Inspector as a promotion, particularly when the 1st Respondent had clarified that the Recruitment Rules applicable to the said post in DRT-2, Chennai could be adopted, and the Applicant continued in the post on deputation.

4. It is further submitted that, following the merger of the posts of Recovery Inspector and Assistant with effect from 08.06.2018, pursuant to the executive order and the notified Recruitment Rules, 2018, the Applicant's position as Recovery Inspector ought to have been treated as that of Assistant under the new Rules. Consequently, his repatriation from the post of Recovery Inspector to Court Master--both of which had ceased to exist in their original form--was legally untenable.

5. The learned counsel further argued that when new Recruitment Rules are framed, employees already in service prior to such notification are deemed to be governed by the new Rules. Therefore, the Applicant ought not to have been repatriated. It is also contended that other similarly placed Recovery Inspectors appointed under the old Rules were included in the seniority list of Assistants, whereas the Applicant alone was subjected to reversion, in violation of the principles of equality and equal protection of the law.

6. He drew our attention to the Office Memorandum dated 21.12.2010, on "Guidelines on framing/amendment/relaxation of Recruitment Rules', and drew our attention to 'Initial Constitution. It reads as under:

                          "3.1.1. In cases where a new service if formed and Recruitment Rules are framed for the first time and there are officers already holding different categories of posts proposed to be included in the service on a regular/long term basis, a suitable 'initial constitution' clause may be inserted in the Notification so as to count the regular service rendered by such officers both the date of notification of the Rules.

7. He further drew our attention to the FAQ on Recruitment Rules and to Question No.14 regarding What is initial constitution clause in Recruitment rules?

                          'Ans: In cases where a new service is formed and the Recruitment Rules are framed for the first time and there are officers already holding different categories of posts proposed to be included in the service on a regular/long term basis, a suitable 'Initial Constitution clause may be inserted in the Notification so as to count the regular service rendered by such officers before the date of Rules.'

8. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment, dated 04.03.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sports Authority of India Vs Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana, in Civil Appeal No.2289 - 2291, 2296 - 2298/2025, order (2025 INSC 319) as well as the Judgment, dated 11.10.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.14097/2005 (CDJ 2007 DHC 297) and prayed for the relief sought in the present OA.

9. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that, pending the notification of Recruitment Rules (RRs) for Group 'A' and 'B' posts in DRT, Madurai, such posts were being filled on a deputation basis by adopting the Recruitment Rules of DRT-2, Chennai. Accordingly, the Applicant was appointed as Recovery Inspector (a Group 'B' post) on deputation for a period of three years with effect from 04.03.2016.

10. It was further submitted that, on 08.06.2018, the Ministry of Finance issued executive instructions merging the cadre of Recovery Inspector with that of Assistant, and the cadre of Court Master with that of Upper Division Clerk (UDC), along with corresponding changes in nomenclature. On the same date, new combined Recruitment Rules were notified for DRAT, Chennai, and DRTs at Ernakulam, Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore, and Bengaluru, superseding all prior Recruitment Rules. Under the new framework, promotion to the post of Assistant (which includes the erstwhile post of Recovery Inspector) is to be made based on a common seniority list across all these tribunals, which was under preparation at the relevant time.

11. Learned counsel further pointed out that, upon completion of his three-year deputation tenure, the Applicant was repatriated to his substantive post of Upper Division Clerk (formerly Court Master) with effect from 04.03.2019. The Applicant's contention that his deputation ought to have been automatically converted into a promotion as Assistant under the new Recruitment Rules is untenable, as his appointment to the post of Recovery Inspector was purely on a deputation basis. It was emphasized that promotions must be effected strictly in accordance with the new Recruitment Rules, and no right of absorption or continuation accrues to a deputationist beyond the sanctioned period.

12. It was also submitted that similarly placed employees in other DRTs were either absorbed or promoted under the pre-2018 Recruitment Rules, or were considered under the merger provisions only if they were holding the posts on a substantive basis. The Applicant's representations were duly considered; however, no irregularity or illegality was found in his repatriation or in the denial of promotion, as the same was in conformity with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the guidelines issued by the DoPT. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the Original Application, as it is devoid of merit.

13. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.

14. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the Applicant, who was appointed as Recovery Inspector on deputation, is entitled to be treated as having been appointed as Assistant under the Recruitment Rules, 2018, and consequently, whether his repatriation to his parent cadre is liable to be interfered with.

15. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the Applicant was appointed to the post of Recovery Inspector purely on a deputation basis for a fixed period of three years with effect from 04.03.2016. The terms of deputation are clear and unambiguous, and it is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that a deputationist does not acquire any vested right to continue in the deputed post beyond the sanctioned tenure, nor does such appointment confer any right of absorption or promotion unless specifically provided for under the applicable rules.

16. The contention of the Applicant that his deputation ought to have been treated as a promotion cannot be accepted. The material on record does not indicate that his appointment to the post of Recovery Inspector was made by way of promotion in accordance with any duly notified Recruitment Rules. On the contrary, the Respondents have established that, in the absence of notified Recruitment Rules at the relevant time, the post was filled only on a deputation basis by adopting the Recruitment Rules of another Tribunal.

17. With regard to the effect of the Recruitment Rules, 2018 and the merger of posts, it is evident that the new Rules introduced a unified cadre structure and contemplated preparation of a common seniority list for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant. Such restructuring cannot, by itself, be construed as conferring an automatic right of absorption or deemed appointment upon persons who were holding posts on deputation. The benefit of merger and corresponding placement in the new cadre would naturally enure only to those holding the posts on a regular or substantive basis.

18. The reliance placed by the Applicant on the concept of "initial constitution" is also misplaced. The said principle applies to employees who are regularly holding posts proposed to be included in the newly constituted service. In the present case, the Applicant was not holding the post of Recovery Inspector on a regular basis, but only on deputation for a limited tenure. Therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of such a provision.

19. As regards the plea of discrimination, the Respondents have clarified that similarly placed employees who were granted the benefit of merger or included in the seniority list were those holding the posts on a substantive basis or governed by the pre-existing Recruitment Rules. The Applicant has not placed any cogent material to establish that persons identically situated to him, i.e., deputationists, were treated differently. In the absence of such evidence, the allegation of violation of equality cannot be sustained. Further, the repatriation of the Applicant upon completion of his deputation tenure to his substantive post cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Rather, it is in consonance with established service principles as well as the applicable administrative guidelines.

20. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned circular dated 27.12.2018 or the order dated 04.03.2019. The Applicant has failed to establish any legal right for being treated as Assistant under the Recruitment Rules, 2018, or for inclusion in the common seniority list.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.