Judgment : This writ petition has been instituted challenging the orders dated 28.01.2010, communicating the rejection of the respondents to permit the petitioner to withdraw the resignation tendered by him earlier. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was recruited to the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) on 26.11.1990 as a Lower Division Clerk. He was promoted as a Upper Division Clerk / Senior Assistant on 17.09.2004, by the Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Warangal, which was a successor in interest, to a certain extent, of APSEB. While he was working at Adilabad, the General Elections 2009 were announced. It is further stated that, he was inspired by the philosophy propounded by Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and various other national leaders and hence wanted to contest the general elections for the Indian Parliament. Since the conduct rules do not permit the employees to participate directly in politics, he has preferred to tender his resignation which was accepted by the Superintendent Engineer (Operations), Adilabad, though his memo dated 30.03.2009. [In terms of Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations have been framed and published. Regulation 4 thereof listed out various misconducts on the part of employees. Entry XV thereof states thus: to take part or associate with any political party or organization including canvassing.] Incidentally, the petitioner is a member who belongs to Schedule Tribe community and hence he contested for election to Lok Sabha from Adilabad constituency which is reserved for Scheduled Tribes. He lost the election and then he realized that politics is not his cup of tea. He submitted a representation on 23.05.2009 to the Superintendent Engineer seeking permission to withdraw his resignation which was accepted on 30.03.2009 and permit him to rejoin duty once again. That request of the writ petitioner has been forwarded by the Superintendent Engineer for consideration of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, who in turn took up the matter with the State Government, seeking instructions as to whether the incumbent be admitted to duty permitting him to withdraw the resignation. It is now stated that the State Government has declined to accord any such permission and hence he instituted this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is now stated that the State Government has declined to accord any such permission and hence he instituted this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Apart from reiterating the fact situation in the matter, Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the State Government has accorded permission in several cases in the past allowing their employees to rejoin duty after such employees have lost the elections which they have contested. Only in the case of the writ petitioner such a permission has been declined. 4. Strong reliance has been placed on the orders passed by the State Government in their G.O.Ms.No.411 Home (Police.E) Department dated 30.11.1995, G.O.Ms.No.115 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (A.H.I) Department dated 10.10.1997, G.O.Ms.No.939 Revenue (Services) Department dated 19.11.2004, G.O.Ms.No.596 Revenue (Services-III) Department dated 23.06.2010 and also another order said to have been passed by the State Government in Home Department in respect of Sri T.V. Hanmanth Rao, former Inspector of Police, Hyderabad Range. 5. One Sri B. Narsing Rao, Inspector of Police, Hyderabad Range, appears to have resigned from service to contest the elections for the State Assembly during the year 1985. He lost the election and thereafter, he submitted a representation on 17.09.1993 seeking permission to withdraw his resignation. Government in their Home Department accepted the request of the said Sri B. Narsing Rao after consulting the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, in the matter. Hence suitable orders were passed through their G.O.Ms.No.411 Home (Police.E) Department dated 30.11.1995. Sri B. Narsing Rao joined the service back as Inspector of Police. Similarly, one Dr. K. Narayana Reddy, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon took voluntary retirement from service with effect from 25.03.1996 afternoon, for contesting elections for the Adilabad Parliamentary Constituency held during May 1996. He lost the said election and thereafter submitted representations on 20.09.1996 and 11.08.1997 seeking permission to withdraw his voluntary retirement offer. Promptly the State Government conceded the request of the said Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and passed orders through their G.O.Ms.No.115 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (A.H.I) Department dated 10.10.1997, accepting the request of Dr. K. Narayana Reddy and appointed him as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon afresh. 6. One Smt. G.V. Satyavani, Tahsildar, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, resigned from her service with effect from 01.04.2004 for contesting elections to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Sampara constituency. K. Narayana Reddy and appointed him as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon afresh. 6. One Smt. G.V. Satyavani, Tahsildar, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, resigned from her service with effect from 01.04.2004 for contesting elections to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Sampara constituency. After she lost the election Smt. G.V. Satyavani submitted a representation on 29.05.2004 seeking permission to withdraw her resignation and sought for re-induction into service through her representation dated 29.05.2004. The Government passed orders through their G.O.Ms.No.939 Revenue (Services) Department dated 19.11.2004 conceding the request of Smt. G.V. Satyavani and reinstated her to duty as Mandal Revenue Officer. 7. One Sri Ade Thukaram, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District has resigned from Government service on 13.03.2009 to contest the elections for the Adilabad Lok Sabha constituency which is reserved for Scheduled Tribes. That resignation was accepted by the Collector, Adilabad on 20.03.2009. He contested the election and lost the same and he submitted a representation seeking permission to withdraw his resignation. Government passed orders through their G.O.Ms.No.596 Revenue (Services-III) Department dated 23.06.2010 permitting the said Sri Ade Thukaram, to withdraw his resignation and re-appointed him in the cadre of Senior Assistant in terms of sub-rule (b), of Rule 30 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, subject to the conditions specified in sub-rules (c) and (d) of Rule 30. 8. It is further brought out that one Sri T.V.Hanmanth Rao, Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad Range has resigned from service with effect from 31.07.2008 for the purpose of joining a political party. His resignation was accepted by the D.I.G, Hyderabad Range, the competent authority. However, when he sought for permission to withdraw his resignation and rejoin service as Inspector of Police, he has been permitted to do so by the State Government, Home Department during February, 2010. 9. The aforesaid orders of the State Government acting through various departments would leave an impression that the State Government is not very serious or keen in securing full compliance of the conduct rules framed by it, expressly prohibiting participation of the Government Servants in active politics while in service. [The Governor of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of power available to him under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, has framed the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Hence they have statutory force. [The Governor of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of power available to him under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, has framed the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Hence they have statutory force. Rule 19(1) thereof declares that no Government employee shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with any political party nor shall he participate in any manner of any political movement or activity or in aid of it. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 19 prohibits the Government employee from taking part in any election to Parliament, or any House of a State Legislature or any local authority, except in due performance of a duty. There is no provision, in these rules, to relax the rigour of them in any particular or class of cases.] The State Government has permitted on several occasions, as is seen above, the losing candidates to get back to the Government service. It is difficult to characterize that the above narrated incidents are all stray incidents where, without a serious application, of any principle, the State Government has passed orders. The series of orders referred to supra would clearly lead to a discernable weaving pattern around which the Government’s thought process is applied. No reasons, much less the valid ones, have been assigned by the State Government as to why it is welcoming back its servants who have strayed into active politics and found the waters too difficult to wade through. Would any of the candidates, have returned to the service of the State Government, if only they were elected at the elections, thus preferring to quit the membership in any local body or Assembly or Parliament as the case may be?. Answer to the above question is not far to seek. 10. Then, in what compelling circumstances is the State Government passing orders permitting their former servants to join back the service after they were defeated at the elections? Can it be said that if a candidate has contested an election on behalf of a particular political party which may have formed the Government, but unfortunately got defeated in the constituency where from he contested the elections, should be permitted to perform a somersault. Or across the board, without any such political considerations or compulsions, and irrespective of party affiliations all State Government servants who were defeated at the elections, can make it back to the Government service. Or across the board, without any such political considerations or compulsions, and irrespective of party affiliations all State Government servants who were defeated at the elections, can make it back to the Government service. What exactly is the policy of the State in this regard? Was there any valid principle behind the entire exercise? Can the prohibitions contained in the Conduct Rules of the State be neutralized in the absence of power to relax them? If there is no valid principle rooted in public interest, behind any such exercise, does it not amount to whimsical attitude exhibited by the State, to allow semi political personalities to seep through the cadres of the State services? Further, a conduct, in express breach of the Conduct Rules, being objectionable, how can that be compatible with the requirement of dispassionate element of public service and will it not be harmful and subversive of discipline and efficiency of public service? 11. In the instant case two candidates, amongst others who contested the elections for Adilabad Lok Sabha constituency and lost the same, wanted to make a come back. One happened to be the servant of the State Government while the other, the petitioner, is the servant of the State owned organization which otherwise answers the description of a State. In the case of Sri Ade Thukaram, the State Government passed its orders welcoming his come back to Government service. In the case of the writ petitioner, it takes a contrary decision for no discernable reasons. What is the principle behind these two decisions, that separates the writ petitioner’s case from that of Sri Ade Thukaram? Incomprehensible are the reasons except that one decision is taken in its Revenue Department while, the other was taken in its Energy Department of the same State Government. Strange are the ways of functioning of the State Government ! The State’s actions either in permitting a grandiose come back or rejection of re-entry are both mired in mystery. Can it be reduced to this: People with right connections at right places and at right times can get back and others – no. Unprincipled actions of the State are incompatible to the principles of good governance. The State is bound to act in conformity with the principles enunciated in our constitution as a choicest policy. Can it be reduced to this: People with right connections at right places and at right times can get back and others – no. Unprincipled actions of the State are incompatible to the principles of good governance. The State is bound to act in conformity with the principles enunciated in our constitution as a choicest policy. If our constitutional makers have preferred to segregate the executive into two parts, one comprising of the servants recruited to its service who hold their office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor, as the case be and the other who periodically get elected, can a State Government depart from such a principle and act contrary thereto, by allowing a crisscross between these segments? If a public servant is forbidden by his conduct rules, (as a public policy choice) from participating or taking to active politics, can the State Government take a decision contra thereto and then condone such an express breach of the conduct rule in select few cases? Where does the dividing line lie? These are but some of the inconvenient questions which stare at the State Government. 12. It is high time that the Chief Secretary to the Government advises the Government properly for announcing a policy decision in this regard so that, uniformity of action would follow henceforth. 13. Since there is no principle behind the entire exercise, I set aside the impugned order, remit the matter back to the State Government to take an appropriate decision in the matter after announcing a policy decision in this regard. The registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the State Government. 14.With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.