JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri R.K. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel and Shri Th. Babloo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the letter dated 08-05-2014 issued by the respondent No. 4, DGBR and the letter dated 17-03-2006 with clarification letter dated 08-10-2007 issued by the respondent No. 4, DGBR being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3.1. According to the petitioner, in the year 2011, he was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Border Roads Engineering Service under Border Roads Development Board, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on the recommendation of the UPSC and while the petitioner was working in that capacity to the satisfaction of his higher officials, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) issued an advertisement dated 04-03-2014 inviting applications from amongst the eligible officers of the State Government, Central Government etc. for appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of Manager (Tech.). The para 15 of the important conditions is as under – “15. Duly filled-in applications, along with the requisite information/documents stated in above paras, may be sent by Registered/Speed Post, through proper channel wherever applicable, to the following address, within 30 days of date of publication of advertisement. However, if the candidate anticipates delay in forwarding of his/her application from parent department, he/she should submit an advance copy of the application before the last date prescribed for the receipt of applications. Applications routed though proper channel from the parent department along with requisite information/documents should reach NHAI at the earliest.” 3.2. In order to submit his application, through proper channel, as per the conditions mentioned above, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 07-04-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application with an advance copy endorsed to the NHAI. Applications routed though proper channel from the parent department along with requisite information/documents should reach NHAI at the earliest.” 3.2. In order to submit his application, through proper channel, as per the conditions mentioned above, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 07-04-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application with an advance copy endorsed to the NHAI. Although his application was forwarded by the Officer Commanding, 98 RCC (GREF) to the Headquarter 15 BRTF for further process vide his letter dated 08-04-2014, the petitioner’s application, to his shock and dismay, was returned by the DGBR’s office without forwarding it to the Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways vide its letter dated 08-05-2014 on the ground that there is a ban imposed on forwarding officers for proceeding “on outside employment on application to outside employment on regular basis”. 3.3. On some researches being conducted by the petitioner, he came to know that a letter dated 17-03-2006 was issued by the DGBR’s office wherein it is stated that consequent to the restriction imposed by the Government on recruitment vis-a-vis annual wastage, the on-roll strength in the organisation is being reduced day by day in almost all the cadres and that it has been decided to impose a ban on forwarding of applications for outside employment until further order. The said ban came to be renewed later and lifted vide letter dated 20-07-2007 issued by the DGBR‘s office which was later clarified that the ban imposed on forwarding of applications is still in operation in respect of officers till further orders. The petitioner further came to know that an O.M. dated 23-12-2013 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Grievances and Pensions containing instructions on forwarding of applications, wherein it is provided that the forwarding of applications should be the rule rather than an exception and that ordinarily, every employee should be permitted to apply for outside post. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 17-06-2014 to reconsider his case for forwarding his application for outside employment and the same was forwarded by the office of the Commandant, 15 BRTF to Headquarter on 18-07-2014. 3.3. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 17-06-2014 to reconsider his case for forwarding his application for outside employment and the same was forwarded by the office of the Commandant, 15 BRTF to Headquarter on 18-07-2014. 3.3. In the meantime, the NHAI informed the candidates including the petitioner whose applications have not been received through proper channel that the direct recruitment would be made through written examination with the request to obtain NOC from their cadre controlling authority and to produce the same when reporting for the examination failing which they would not be allowed to appear in the examination. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21-07-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB through proper channel requesting him to issue NOC for appearing in the examination and while awaiting NOC, the NHAI issued a Circular dated 28-07-2014 stating that the written examination would be held on 23-08-2014 and that the candidates were requested to obtain NOC and to produce the same when they reported to the examination centre for written examination failing which they would not be allowed to sit for the examination. Having no option left with him, the petitioner has approached this court by way of this present writ petition. 4. On 14-08-2014, when the present petition came up for consideration at the stage of motion, this court keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, was pleased to direct that the petitioner be permitted to appear in the written examination scheduled to be held on 23-08-2014 and that the result thereof in respect of the petitioner should be not announced without the leave of this court. When declaring the result, petitioner’s result was withheld and accordingly, the petitioner filed an application being M.C (W.P. (C)) No. 203 of 2014 praying that the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 be directed to declare the result of the petitioner because it would have a bearing in the present petition at the time of its disposal. While disposing of the said application, this court vide its order dated 06-02-2015 directed the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to declare the result and in a writ appeal being W.A No. 20 of 2015 preferred against the order dated 06-02-2015, the Division Bench of this court directed that the declaration of the result shall not confer any right to seek appointment till the disposal of the present petition. 5. 4 & 5 to declare the result and in a writ appeal being W.A No. 20 of 2015 preferred against the order dated 06-02-2015, the Division Bench of this court directed that the declaration of the result shall not confer any right to seek appointment till the disposal of the present petition. 5. The present writ petition is contested by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that the NOC could not be granted to the petitioner on the ground of ban being imposed on forwarding officers for proceeding to outside employment vide letter dated 08-10-2007 of the DGBR. The petitioner being an officer with adequate service in the organisation, should know the rules and regulations of the parent department. It is also submitted that the Delhi High Court vide its judgment and order dated 05-03-2015 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1322 of 2015 has held that a Government servant does not have absolute right to choose when he would like to move on to another department or another wing of the Government at his free will. His entitlement to move out is subject to the consent given by the parent department by accepting the technical resignation. An employee when he joins his service is subject to certain terms and conditions of service and cannot quit the employment contrary to terms and conditions of the service rules and therefore the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. According to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the petitioner has misled this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner should have obtained NOC from the Department prior to forwarding his application to the NHAI. An affidavit-in-opposition was also filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted his application through proper channel as per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and accordingly, he was informed to submit NOC from his cadre controlling authority which he failed to do so. But pursuant to and in compliance with the interim order dated 14-07-2014 passed by this court, the petitioner was allowed to sit for the written examination and while declaring the result thereof, his result was withheld. It is further stated that even if he is found successful in the examination, he has no enforceable right for appointment without NOC being issued by his cadre controlling authority. It is further stated that even if he is found successful in the examination, he has no enforceable right for appointment without NOC being issued by his cadre controlling authority. Although this court vide order dated 13-10-2014 has directed the answering respondents to keep one post vacant, nine months have lapsed and the petitioner is unable to submit his NOC and therefore, the answering respondents submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to consider the same. 6. Vide order dated 06-02-2015 passed by this court, the respondents Nos. 5 & 6 were directed to declare the result of the petitioner and to communicate the same to him but a writ appeal being W.A. No. 16 of 2015 was preferred against it wherein the Division Bench of this court refused to interfere with the direction for declaration of petitioner’s result with the order that the petitioner shall not have right to claim for appointment till the disposal of the present petition. Thereafter, it appears that the result of the petitioner was filed in this court in a sealed cover. On 16-09-2015, when the present petition came up for consideration and before the hearing commenced, the envelope was opened in the presence of the counsels appearing for the parties with the idea that in the event of the petitioner being found not qualified and successful in the examination, the present petition would be rendered infructuous and would require no hearing at all. But since the petitioner was found qualified and successful in the examination, the hearing was commenced immediately thereafter. 7. After going through the writ petition along with the counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties, it appears that there are two main issues involved herein - (a) one, in respect of the competency of the respondent No. 4, DGBR to take a policy decision imposing ban on forwarding applications and (b) two, in respect of discriminatory and arbitrary exercise of power by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The second issue will be considered first for the reason that in the event of the second issue being decided in favour of the petitioner, there will be no need of considering the first issue. 8. 1 to 4. The second issue will be considered first for the reason that in the event of the second issue being decided in favour of the petitioner, there will be no need of considering the first issue. 8. Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit, has submitted that the results of two candidates namely Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto who were similarly situated, were declared by the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 as is evident from the additional affidavit, filed the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 pursuant to the order dated 01-09-2015 passed by this court, stating therein that the applications of the said two persons were forwarded to NHAI through proper channel and accordingly, their results were declared wherein both of them were found qualified in the examination. It is further submitted that though the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have forwarded the applications of the said two persons, they have refused to forward the application of the petitioner on the ground of ban which is common for all and that the refusal of forwarding petitioner’s application was highly unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed by him in the decision dated 04-05-2000 rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 3749 of 1999 wherein the petitioner (EE (Civ.)) applied for outside employment on deputation to NHAI which was turned down on the ground of huge deficiency in civil engineering cadre, the Hon’ble Delhi high court has held as under: “11. It need hardly to be said that it is the fundamental right of every employee to advance his career and an employee must be given ample opportunity to upgrade his career prospects. The action of the respondent on refusing permission/no objection certificate for outside employment would be violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner to upgrade his career prospects. If at all there is any deficiency of a particular class/rank of employee it is for the employer, namely respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate steps and fill up the existing vacancies but that can hardly be a reason to refuse permission/NOC for all times to come when employee wants to upgrade his career prospects by joining outside organisation when he is getting higher position/better prospects. At the best, on the ground assigned by the respondent No. 1 – 3 permission/NOC can be deferred/withheld for some reasonable period but nothing further.” Further reliance has been placed in the decision dated 17-04-2013 rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 293 of 2013, Satendra Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI wherein the petitioner submitted an application through proper channel for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Bihar Staff Selection Commission to which the respondents issued No Objection Certificate but later refused to accept technical resignation, the Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief as was granted in Shashi Kant Singh (Supra) and accordingly, the respondents were directed to accept technical resignation of the petitioner therein. It is also submitted that at the time when the petitioner joined the service, the fact that ban having been imposed in forwarding applications as one of the conditions of service, the petitioner would have no opportunity to look for another service while in service, was not disclosed to him, otherwise the petitioner would have thought many times before joining the service. 9. On the other hand, Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG has submitted that there is nothing wrong in refusing to forward the application of the petitioner because there was a ban, by way of policy decision, being imposed on forwarding applications for outside employment. The petitioner being an officer with adequate service in the organisation, should know the rules and regulations of the organisation. Reliance has been placed in the decision dated 05-03-2015 rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 1322 of 2015 wherein the Hon’ble High Court had observed that a Government servant does not have absolute right to choose when he would like to move on to another department or another wing of the Government at his free will. His entitlement to move out is subject to the consent given by the parent department by accepting the technical resignation. An employee when he joins his service is subject to certain terms and conditions of service and cannot quit the employment contrary to terms and conditions of the service rules and therefore the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Shri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. An employee when he joins his service is subject to certain terms and conditions of service and cannot quit the employment contrary to terms and conditions of the service rules and therefore the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Shri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 has submitted that although the petitioner is found to be qualified, he has no right to be appointed and no step can be taken by the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 without the “No objection Certificate” being submitted by the petitioner from his cadre controlling authority. It is further submitted by him that pursuant to the order dated 13-10-2014 passed by this court, one seat is being kept vacant but this court may consider the inconvenience being faced by them awaiting the outcome of the present case and that too, without getting the service of the employee. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and having examined the materials on record, it cannot be in dispute that at the relevant time, the petitioner and Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto were serving as Assistant Executive Engineer in GREF under BRES as shown in the Seniority List and pursuant to and in terms of the advertisement dated 04-03-2014 issued by NHAI requiring the applications to be submitted through proper channel, all of them submitted their applications to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for getting the same forwarded to NHAI. It is evident from the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 that the applications of Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto were forwarded to NHAI through proper channel and accordingly their results were declared. It is also undeniable fact that in order to submit his application, through proper channel, as per the condition mentioned above, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 07-04-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application with an advance copy endorsed to the NHAI. It is also undeniable fact that in order to submit his application, through proper channel, as per the condition mentioned above, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 07-04-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application with an advance copy endorsed to the NHAI. Although his application was forwarded by the Officer Commanding, 98 RCC (GREF) to the Headquarter 15 BRTF, the same was returned by the DGBR’s office without forwarding it to the Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways vide its letter dated 08-05-2014 on the ground that there is a ban imposed on forwarding officers for proceeding “on outside employment on application to outside employment on regular basis”. Since the ban is applicable to all concerned, the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for refusal of forwarding the application of the petitioner, while the applications of Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto having been forwarded, is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have acted as if the ban was not applicable to the cases of the said two persons. There is no material placed on record by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to show as to why the petitioner be treated differently and discriminated from Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto. Over and above, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have not produced any document containing guidelines as to how and under what circumstances, such applications can be or cannot be forwarded by them. So far as the present case is concerned, it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that the only reason as to why the petitioner’s application was refused to be forwarded to NHAI on the mere ground of ban is that the petitioner while submitting his application dated 07-04-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application, has sent an advance copy also to the NHAI. It further appears that this conduct of the petitioner has annoyed some of his higher officials in the office of the DGBR as is evident from the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have emphasised in their affidavit that the petitioner should have obtained NOC from the Department prior to forwarding his application to the NHAI. It further appears that this conduct of the petitioner has annoyed some of his higher officials in the office of the DGBR as is evident from the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have emphasised in their affidavit that the petitioner should have obtained NOC from the Department prior to forwarding his application to the NHAI. But there is nothing wrong in his conduct because the condition contained in the advertisement provides that if the candidate anticipates delay in forwarding of his application from parent department, he should submit an advance copy of the application before the last date prescribed for the receipt of applications. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being Government institutions, are expected to act fairly and reasonably and instead of getting annoyed with the petitioner for sending advance copy of the application to NHAI, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ought to have considered his case as per rule and to have treated him equally and at par with Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto. There is no reason as to why the petitioner be meted out with a different treatment. The decision dated 05-03-2015 rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 1322 of 2015, relied upon by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, will not help them at all and on the contrary, the decision dated 04-05-2000 rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 3749 of 1999 is more relevant and convincing and is acceptable to this court. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has rightly held that it is the fundamental right of every employee to advance his career and an employee must be given ample opportunity to upgrade his career prospects. It has further held that if there is any deficiency in the Department, appropriate steps be taken by them to fill up the vacancies. The fact that the ban imposed in the year 2006 still continues, shows that appropriate steps have not been taken by the authorities concerned. Admittedly, the Engineering Services Examination in respect of all Central Government Engineering Departments under organised Group - A & B Services including that of Boarder Roads Engineering Services Group - A Officers is being conducted by the UPSC every year. Admittedly, the Engineering Services Examination in respect of all Central Government Engineering Departments under organised Group - A & B Services including that of Boarder Roads Engineering Services Group - A Officers is being conducted by the UPSC every year. As has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the deficiency of officers in the Department cannot be the reason to refuse permission/ NOC for all times to come and moreover, there shall be no discrimination as regards the forwarding of applications for outside employment. It is trite that all the persons, similarly situated, shall be treated equally as mandated in the Article 14 of the Constitution. 11. Having found that the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in refusing to forward the application of the petitioner being discriminatory and arbitrary and consequently being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the letter dated 08-05-2015 issued by the office of the respondent No. 4, DGBR is liable to be set aside and quashed. Since the issue as regards the correctness and legality of the said letter having been decided in favour of the petitioner on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, there is no need of going into the issue as to whether the DGBR is competent to take a policy decision, imposing ban on forwarding application for outside employment, in respect of service conditions of the employees or not, although the petitioner has questioned it on various grounds including the contention that it is only the DOPT which can take decisions in respect of service conditions of the central government employees as per the provisions of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 and however, it is made clear that this court does not express any opinion in respect thereof. 12. For the reasons stated above, the present petition is allowed and the letter dated 08-05-2015 issued by the office of the respondent No. 4, DGBR is set aside and quashed with the following directions: 1. Heard Shri R.K. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel and Shri Th. Babloo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. Heard Shri R.K. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel and Shri Th. Babloo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the letter dated 08-05-2014 issued by the respondent No. 4, DGBR and the letter dated 17-03-2006 with clarification letter dated 08-10-2007 issued by the respondent No. 4, DGBR being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3.1. According to the petitioner, in the year 2011, he was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Border Roads Engineering Service under Border Roads Development Board, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on the recommendation of the UPSC and while the petitioner was working in that capacity to the satisfaction of his higher officials, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) issued an advertisement dated 04-03-2014 inviting applications from amongst the eligible officers of the State Government, Central Government etc. for appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of Manager (Tech.). The para 15 of the important conditions is as under – “15. Duly filled-in applications, along with the requisite information/documents stated in above paras, may be sent by Registered/Speed Post, through proper channel wherever applicable, to the following address, within 30 days of date of publication of advertisement. However, if the candidate anticipates delay in forwarding of his/her application from parent department, he/she should submit an advance copy of the application before the last date prescribed for the receipt of applications. Applications routed though proper channel from the parent department along with requisite information/documents should reach NHAI at the earliest.” 3.2. In order to submit his application, through proper channel, as per the conditions mentioned above, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 07-04-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application with an advance copy endorsed to the NHAI. Applications routed though proper channel from the parent department along with requisite information/documents should reach NHAI at the earliest.” 3.2. In order to submit his application, through proper channel, as per the conditions mentioned above, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 07-04-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application with an advance copy endorsed to the NHAI. Although his application was forwarded by the Officer Commanding, 98 RCC (GREF) to the Headquarter 15 BRTF for further process vide his letter dated 08-04-2014, the petitioner’s application, to his shock and dismay, was returned by the DGBR’s office without forwarding it to the Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways vide its letter dated 08-05-2014 on the ground that there is a ban imposed on forwarding officers for proceeding “on outside employment on application to outside employment on regular basis”. 3.3. On some researches being conducted by the petitioner, he came to know that a letter dated 17-03-2006 was issued by the DGBR’s office wherein it is stated that consequent to the restriction imposed by the Government on recruitment vis-a-vis annual wastage, the on-roll strength in the organisation is being reduced day by day in almost all the cadres and that it has been decided to impose a ban on forwarding of applications for outside employment until further order. The said ban came to be renewed later and lifted vide letter dated 20-07-2007 issued by the DGBR‘s office which was later clarified that the ban imposed on forwarding of applications is still in operation in respect of officers till further orders. The petitioner further came to know that an O.M. dated 23-12-2013 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Grievances and Pensions containing instructions on forwarding of applications, wherein it is provided that the forwarding of applications should be the rule rather than an exception and that ordinarily, every employee should be permitted to apply for outside post. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 17-06-2014 to reconsider his case for forwarding his application for outside employment and the same was forwarded by the office of the Commandant, 15 BRTF to Headquarter on 18-07-2014. 3.3. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 17-06-2014 to reconsider his case for forwarding his application for outside employment and the same was forwarded by the office of the Commandant, 15 BRTF to Headquarter on 18-07-2014. 3.3. In the meantime, the NHAI informed the candidates including the petitioner whose applications have not been received through proper channel that the direct recruitment would be made through written examination with the request to obtain NOC from their cadre controlling authority and to produce the same when reporting for the examination failing which they would not be allowed to appear in the examination. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21-07-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB through proper channel requesting him to issue NOC for appearing in the examination and while awaiting NOC, the NHAI issued a Circular dated 28-07-2014 stating that the written examination would be held on 23-08-2014 and that the candidates were requested to obtain NOC and to produce the same when they reported to the examination centre for written examination failing which they would not be allowed to sit for the examination. Having no option left with him, the petitioner has approached this court by way of this present writ petition. 4. On 14-08-2014, when the present petition came up for consideration at the stage of motion, this court keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, was pleased to direct that the petitioner be permitted to appear in the written examination scheduled to be held on 23-08-2014 and that the result thereof in respect of the petitioner should be not announced without the leave of this court. When declaring the result, petitioner’s result was withheld and accordingly, the petitioner filed an application being M.C (W.P. (C)) No. 203 of 2014 praying that the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 be directed to declare the result of the petitioner because it would have a bearing in the present petition at the time of its disposal. While disposing of the said application, this court vide its order dated 06-02-2015 directed the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to declare the result and in a writ appeal being W.A No. 20 of 2015 preferred against the order dated 06-02-2015, the Division Bench of this court directed that the declaration of the result shall not confer any right to seek appointment till the disposal of the present petition. 5. 4 & 5 to declare the result and in a writ appeal being W.A No. 20 of 2015 preferred against the order dated 06-02-2015, the Division Bench of this court directed that the declaration of the result shall not confer any right to seek appointment till the disposal of the present petition. 5. The present writ petition is contested by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that the NOC could not be granted to the petitioner on the ground of ban being imposed on forwarding officers for proceeding to outside employment vide letter dated 08-10-2007 of the DGBR. The petitioner being an officer with adequate service in the organisation, should know the rules and regulations of the parent department. It is also submitted that the Delhi High Court vide its judgment and order dated 05-03-2015 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1322 of 2015 has held that a Government servant does not have absolute right to choose when he would like to move on to another department or another wing of the Government at his free will. His entitlement to move out is subject to the consent given by the parent department by accepting the technical resignation. An employee when he joins his service is subject to certain terms and conditions of service and cannot quit the employment contrary to terms and conditions of the service rules and therefore the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. According to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the petitioner has misled this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner should have obtained NOC from the Department prior to forwarding his application to the NHAI. An affidavit-in-opposition was also filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted his application through proper channel as per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and accordingly, he was informed to submit NOC from his cadre controlling authority which he failed to do so. But pursuant to and in compliance with the interim order dated 14-07-2014 passed by this court, the petitioner was allowed to sit for the written examination and while declaring the result thereof, his result was withheld. It is further stated that even if he is found successful in the examination, he has no enforceable right for appointment without NOC being issued by his cadre controlling authority. It is further stated that even if he is found successful in the examination, he has no enforceable right for appointment without NOC being issued by his cadre controlling authority. Although this court vide order dated 13-10-2014 has directed the answering respondents to keep one post vacant, nine months have lapsed and the petitioner is unable to submit his NOC and therefore, the answering respondents submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to consider the same. 6. Vide order dated 06-02-2015 passed by this court, the respondents Nos. 5 & 6 were directed to declare the result of the petitioner and to communicate the same to him but a writ appeal being W.A. No. 16 of 2015 was preferred against it wherein the Division Bench of this court refused to interfere with the direction for declaration of petitioner’s result with the order that the petitioner shall not have right to claim for appointment till the disposal of the present petition. Thereafter, it appears that the result of the petitioner was filed in this court in a sealed cover. On 16-09-2015, when the present petition came up for consideration and before the hearing commenced, the envelope was opened in the presence of the counsels appearing for the parties with the idea that in the event of the petitioner being found not qualified and successful in the examination, the present petition would be rendered infructuous and would require no hearing at all. But since the petitioner was found qualified and successful in the examination, the hearing was commenced immediately thereafter. 7. After going through the writ petition along with the counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties, it appears that there are two main issues involved herein - (a) one, in respect of the competency of the respondent No. 4, DGBR to take a policy decision imposing ban on forwarding applications and (b) two, in respect of discriminatory and arbitrary exercise of power by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The second issue will be considered first for the reason that in the event of the second issue being decided in favour of the petitioner, there will be no need of considering the first issue. 8. 1 to 4. The second issue will be considered first for the reason that in the event of the second issue being decided in favour of the petitioner, there will be no need of considering the first issue. 8. Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit, has submitted that the results of two candidates namely Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto who were similarly situated, were declared by the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 as is evident from the additional affidavit, filed the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 pursuant to the order dated 01-09-2015 passed by this court, stating therein that the applications of the said two persons were forwarded to NHAI through proper channel and accordingly, their results were declared wherein both of them were found qualified in the examination. It is further submitted that though the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have forwarded the applications of the said two persons, they have refused to forward the application of the petitioner on the ground of ban which is common for all and that the refusal of forwarding petitioner’s application was highly unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed by him in the decision dated 04-05-2000 rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 3749 of 1999 wherein the petitioner (EE (Civ.)) applied for outside employment on deputation to NHAI which was turned down on the ground of huge deficiency in civil engineering cadre, the Hon’ble Delhi high court has held as under: “11. It need hardly to be said that it is the fundamental right of every employee to advance his career and an employee must be given ample opportunity to upgrade his career prospects. The action of the respondent on refusing permission/no objection certificate for outside employment would be violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner to upgrade his career prospects. If at all there is any deficiency of a particular class/rank of employee it is for the employer, namely respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate steps and fill up the existing vacancies but that can hardly be a reason to refuse permission/NOC for all times to come when employee wants to upgrade his career prospects by joining outside organisation when he is getting higher position/better prospects. At the best, on the ground assigned by the respondent No. 1 – 3 permission/NOC can be deferred/withheld for some reasonable period but nothing further.” Further reliance has been placed in the decision dated 17-04-2013 rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 293 of 2013, Satendra Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI wherein the petitioner submitted an application through proper channel for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Bihar Staff Selection Commission to which the respondents issued No Objection Certificate but later refused to accept technical resignation, the Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief as was granted in Shashi Kant Singh (Supra) and accordingly, the respondents were directed to accept technical resignation of the petitioner therein. It is also submitted that at the time when the petitioner joined the service, the fact that ban having been imposed in forwarding applications as one of the conditions of service, the petitioner would have no opportunity to look for another service while in service, was not disclosed to him, otherwise the petitioner would have thought many times before joining the service. 9. On the other hand, Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG has submitted that there is nothing wrong in refusing to forward the application of the petitioner because there was a ban, by way of policy decision, being imposed on forwarding applications for outside employment. The petitioner being an officer with adequate service in the organisation, should know the rules and regulations of the organisation. Reliance has been placed in the decision dated 05-03-2015 rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 1322 of 2015 wherein the Hon’ble High Court had observed that a Government servant does not have absolute right to choose when he would like to move on to another department or another wing of the Government at his free will. His entitlement to move out is subject to the consent given by the parent department by accepting the technical resignation. An employee when he joins his service is subject to certain terms and conditions of service and cannot quit the employment contrary to terms and conditions of the service rules and therefore the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Shri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. An employee when he joins his service is subject to certain terms and conditions of service and cannot quit the employment contrary to terms and conditions of the service rules and therefore the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Shri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 has submitted that although the petitioner is found to be qualified, he has no right to be appointed and no step can be taken by the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 without the “No objection Certificate” being submitted by the petitioner from his cadre controlling authority. It is further submitted by him that pursuant to the order dated 13-10-2014 passed by this court, one seat is being kept vacant but this court may consider the inconvenience being faced by them awaiting the outcome of the present case and that too, without getting the service of the employee. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and having examined the materials on record, it cannot be in dispute that at the relevant time, the petitioner and Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto were serving as Assistant Executive Engineer in GREF under BRES as shown in the Seniority List and pursuant to and in terms of the advertisement dated 04-03-2014 issued by NHAI requiring the applications to be submitted through proper channel, all of them submitted their applications to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for getting the same forwarded to NHAI. It is evident from the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 that the applications of Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto were forwarded to NHAI through proper channel and accordingly their results were declared. It is also undeniable fact that in order to submit his application, through proper channel, as per the condition mentioned above, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 07-04-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application with an advance copy endorsed to the NHAI. It is also undeniable fact that in order to submit his application, through proper channel, as per the condition mentioned above, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 07-04-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application with an advance copy endorsed to the NHAI. Although his application was forwarded by the Officer Commanding, 98 RCC (GREF) to the Headquarter 15 BRTF, the same was returned by the DGBR’s office without forwarding it to the Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways vide its letter dated 08-05-2014 on the ground that there is a ban imposed on forwarding officers for proceeding “on outside employment on application to outside employment on regular basis”. Since the ban is applicable to all concerned, the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for refusal of forwarding the application of the petitioner, while the applications of Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto having been forwarded, is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have acted as if the ban was not applicable to the cases of the said two persons. There is no material placed on record by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to show as to why the petitioner be treated differently and discriminated from Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto. Over and above, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have not produced any document containing guidelines as to how and under what circumstances, such applications can be or cannot be forwarded by them. So far as the present case is concerned, it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that the only reason as to why the petitioner’s application was refused to be forwarded to NHAI on the mere ground of ban is that the petitioner while submitting his application dated 07-04-2014 to the Secretary, BRDB requesting him to forward his application, has sent an advance copy also to the NHAI. It further appears that this conduct of the petitioner has annoyed some of his higher officials in the office of the DGBR as is evident from the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have emphasised in their affidavit that the petitioner should have obtained NOC from the Department prior to forwarding his application to the NHAI. It further appears that this conduct of the petitioner has annoyed some of his higher officials in the office of the DGBR as is evident from the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have emphasised in their affidavit that the petitioner should have obtained NOC from the Department prior to forwarding his application to the NHAI. But there is nothing wrong in his conduct because the condition contained in the advertisement provides that if the candidate anticipates delay in forwarding of his application from parent department, he should submit an advance copy of the application before the last date prescribed for the receipt of applications. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being Government institutions, are expected to act fairly and reasonably and instead of getting annoyed with the petitioner for sending advance copy of the application to NHAI, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ought to have considered his case as per rule and to have treated him equally and at par with Shri Prasant Dubey and Shri Pramod Kumar Mahto. There is no reason as to why the petitioner be meted out with a different treatment. The decision dated 05-03-2015 rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 1322 of 2015, relied upon by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, will not help them at all and on the contrary, the decision dated 04-05-2000 rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 3749 of 1999 is more relevant and convincing and is acceptable to this court. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has rightly held that it is the fundamental right of every employee to advance his career and an employee must be given ample opportunity to upgrade his career prospects. It has further held that if there is any deficiency in the Department, appropriate steps be taken by them to fill up the vacancies. The fact that the ban imposed in the year 2006 still continues, shows that appropriate steps have not been taken by the authorities concerned. Admittedly, the Engineering Services Examination in respect of all Central Government Engineering Departments under organised Group - A & B Services including that of Boarder Roads Engineering Services Group - A Officers is being conducted by the UPSC every year. Admittedly, the Engineering Services Examination in respect of all Central Government Engineering Departments under organised Group - A & B Services including that of Boarder Roads Engineering Services Group - A Officers is being conducted by the UPSC every year. As has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the deficiency of officers in the Department cannot be the reason to refuse permission/ NOC for all times to come and moreover, there shall be no discrimination as regards the forwarding of applications for outside employment. It is trite that all the persons, similarly situated, shall be treated equally as mandated in the Article 14 of the Constitution. 11. Having found that the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in refusing to forward the application of the petitioner being discriminatory and arbitrary and consequently being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the letter dated 08-05-2015 issued by the office of the respondent No. 4, DGBR is liable to be set aside and quashed. Since the issue as regards the correctness and legality of the said letter having been decided in favour of the petitioner on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, there is no need of going into the issue as to whether the DGBR is competent to take a policy decision, imposing ban on forwarding application for outside employment, in respect of service conditions of the employees or not, although the petitioner has questioned it on various grounds including the contention that it is only the DOPT which can take decisions in respect of service conditions of the central government employees as per the provisions of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 and however, it is made clear that this court does not express any opinion in respect thereof. 12. For the reasons stated above, the present petition is allowed and the letter dated 08-05-2015 issued by the office of the respondent No. 4, DGBR is set aside and quashed with the following directions: (a) The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall issue “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order; (b) In the event of the said “No Objection Certificate” being submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall issue “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order; (b) In the event of the said “No Objection Certificate” being submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 shall take necessary and immediate steps so that the petitioner can complete the formalities so as to enable him to join the post of Manager (Tech.) at NHAI without any further delay. There shall be no order as to costs.