JUDGMENT A.S. Supehia, J. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 11.01.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in the above referred Special Civil Application, whereby the learned Singe Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein directing re-appointment on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar and further directed to relieve him from the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. 2. The brief facts necessary for considering the issue involved are as under: 2.1 The respondent - original petitioner herein had applied for the post of Deputy Section Officer/Deputy Mamlatdar pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.01.2011 issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission ("GPSC" for short). The respondent was selected and appointed as Deputy Mamlatdar in the pay-scale of Rs. 9,300-34,500. However, in view of the Policy of 11.06.2012, the respondent was initially put on the fixed salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month for a period of 5 years. 2.2 The respondent had also applied for appointment to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. Vide order dated 07.12.2013 he was appointed as a Commercial Tax Inspector. Since the respondent was desirous to join as Commercial Tax Inspector, appellant No.2 issued an order dated 12.12.2013, relieving him from the post of Deputy Mamlatdar so as to enable him to join as Commercial Tax Inspector under the Commissioner of Commercial Tax. 2.3 The respondent, since was not comfortable on the post of Commercial Tax Inspector, made a request to the Joint Secretary [Services], Revenue Department on 2nd May 2014 to allow him to join back his duties as Deputy Mamlatdar on a plea that socially, physically and mentally, the work of Commercial Tax Inspector was not suitable to him. The reminders were also sent to the appellants on 25.07.2014 and 3.12.2014, to re-appoint him as a Deputy Mamlatdar considering the Government Resolution dated 04.05,2007. Since the respondent was not relieved and re-appointed to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar, he was constrained to file the captioned petition. 3. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant-State authorities has stated that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the policy of the State Government, more particularly, the Circular dated 21.11.2014, which clearly restricts re-appointment in its true perspective. 3. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant-State authorities has stated that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the policy of the State Government, more particularly, the Circular dated 21.11.2014, which clearly restricts re-appointment in its true perspective. He has submitted that the state government has issued the Circular dated 21st November 2014 laying down the procedure to be followed in case of resignation of an employee appointed on contractual basis in the fixed pay. In other words, it is the say of the appellants that once the resignation is tendered by the employee appointed on contractual basis, he cannot be reappointed without prior approval of the Revenue Department and condition no. 11 provides that once the service of a contractual employee ends, there is no provision to re-appoint him. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that, in fact, the respondent herein was relieved from the earlier service as Deputy Mamlatdar pursuant to which he was permitted to join the Tax Department as Commercial Tax Inspector and, therefore also, after relieving there was no question of permitting the respondent to be re-appointed to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has further placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the appellants in the writ petition. He has submitted that the learned single judge has misconstrued the provisions of Government Resolution dated 04.05.2007 since the same will not apply in the case of the respondent as he was not appointed on probation period and was not confirmed in the earlier post of Deputy Mamlatdar. He further submitted that in the instance case, the respondent has tendered his resignation vide application dated 12.12.2013, which was accepted by the deponent office on 12.12.2013. Therefore, it is apparent that the respondent has lost his lien, and hence, he cannot claim re-appointment once his resignation is accepted. He further submitted that it is not the case of the respondent that he was a permanent employee. The respondent was initially appointed on contractual basis for a period of 5 years. Therefore, the Government Resolution dated 04.05.2007 will not be applicable in the instance case by the virtue of his appointment was purely contractual 6. He further submitted that it is not the case of the respondent that he was a permanent employee. The respondent was initially appointed on contractual basis for a period of 5 years. Therefore, the Government Resolution dated 04.05.2007 will not be applicable in the instance case by the virtue of his appointment was purely contractual 6. Learned AGP has also further contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in observing that the Circular dated 21.11.2014 is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 04.05.2007. 7. In response to the contentions raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr.Gunvant Thakar, learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Government Resolution dated 04.05.2007 issued by the General Administration Department provides for benefit of re-appointment to the Government Employees, who are appointed through Gujarat Public Service Commission or Centralized Recruitment Procedure or by any recognized method by the government. 8. Learned advocate, Mr. Thakar has submitted that the Finance Department has issued G.R.No.Exp/2002/57/part-I1/Z-1 dated 18.01.2017 promulgating the scheme of making appointment by direct recruitment for the posts of all the cadres of class-III and Class-IV in State Government as probationers with fix pay. As per para2 of the G.R. Dated 18.01.2017, the period of five years of service put in by the employees appointed under this scheme with the lumpsum pay is not taken into consideration for any service related matter. The State Government has considered this aspect also and decided that the service of these five years put in by the employees appointed with fix pay under the policy of the Finance Department resolution dated 16.02.2006 shall be treated for the purpose of promotion, seniority, and higher pay scale and also for retirement benefits at the time of superannuation. Meaning thereby services of the employees who are appointed under the scheme of contractual appointment through direct recruitment on the post of all the cadres of Class-III and Class-IV in State Government as probationers will be considered for giving benefit of Civil Services Rules and Administrative Instructions (Government Resolutions, Circulars and letters) issued by the Finance Department, General Administration Department. The General Administration Department has also issued G.R. No. CNR/102017/254502/G.5 dated 20/01/2018 on the subject of fixing the seniority and publication of seniority list of Class-III employees appointed under the fixed pay scheme of the State Government. 9. The General Administration Department has also issued G.R. No. CNR/102017/254502/G.5 dated 20/01/2018 on the subject of fixing the seniority and publication of seniority list of Class-III employees appointed under the fixed pay scheme of the State Government. 9. The learned advocate for the respondent has further submitted that Shri Radhanpura Taufiq Yusufbhai who is also similarly situated employee and has filed Special Civil Application No.18187 of 2016 has received information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which relates to Shri Vikas S. Prajapati who was earlier working as clerk under the control of the Inspector General of Registration, was relieved to join the post of Sub-Inspector under the Home Department. Later on, due to the reasons mentioned in his application, he was relieved by the office of the office of the Director, Gujarat Police Academy, Karai, Gandhinagar vide letter dated 19.10.2016 to join the service as Clerk under the control of Inspector General of Registration under the Revenue Department. He was also allowed to join service as Clerk vide order dated 01.07.2016 issued by office of the Inspector General of Registration giving benefit of Government Resolution dated 04.05.2007 issued by the General Administration Department. In the noting, it is specifically mentioned that as per the Government Resolutions issued by the General Administration Department and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No. 2964 of 2015 (i.e. the captioned petition) it is opined that Shri Vikas Prajapati can be re-appointed in the office of the Sub Registrar. Similarly situated employee-Shri Kaushikkumar Arjanbhai, who was appointed as Unarmed Lok Rakshak was relieved from the said post vide order dated 09/10/2013 issued by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar to join the post of Assistant Clerk, Class-III. 10. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material on record 11. The established facts in the present case are that: (a) The respondent was appointed as Deputy Mamlatdar on 11.06.2012 for a fixed pay for five years on contractual basis. (b) He made an application dated 04.12.2012 seeking permission to appear in the competitive exam meant for the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. (c) The respondent after clearing the recruitment process, was appointed on the post of Commercial Tax Inspector on 07.12.2013 for five years on fixed pay on contractual basis. (b) He made an application dated 04.12.2012 seeking permission to appear in the competitive exam meant for the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. (c) The respondent after clearing the recruitment process, was appointed on the post of Commercial Tax Inspector on 07.12.2013 for five years on fixed pay on contractual basis. (d) Vide application dated 12.12.2013, the respondent requested the appellant no.2 to relieve him from the post of Deputy Mamlatdar. (e) By the order of even date, i.e. 12.12.2013, the Opponent was relived from the post of Deputy Mamlatdar. (f) By the letter dated 02.05.2014, the respondent requested the appellant no.1 to re-appoint him to the post of Deputy Mamlatar at the cost of his seniority. (g) Both the posts of Deputy Mamlatdar and Commercial Tax Inspector belong to the same cadre and same department. 12. The controversy in the present appeal hinges on the interpretation of the Resolution dated 04.05.2007 issued by the General Administration Department (G.A.D.) of the State of Gujarat. In the said Resolution, earlier resolutions dated 04.04.1994 and 06.12.1997 are treated to be cancelled and it is declared that the government servants/officers of the State Government/Panchayat who are selected through Gujarat Public Service Commission or Centralized Recruitment Scheme or any recognized method and those who, after being appointed to any higher or equivalent post during the probation period desire to returned to their original cadres or those; who are not continued for a long duration on their higher or equivalent posts, if they want to return back to their original cadre then in that case, their claim for returning back to their original post shall be continued during such period. It is further provided that if after probation period the appointment of these directly recruited employees/officers have ended, then they can be taken back on their original post with their original seniority. Though, the G.R is inartistically worded the intention which is reflected from the same is that it is issued for the benefit of those employees who are working and are subsequently appointed to any equivalent or higher post, and if they desire to come back to their original posts and cadres during their probation period, they are permitted to do so. 13. 13. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the respondent was initially appointed to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar (Class-III), and thereafter, he was subsequently appointed to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector (Class-III). Both of the aforesaid posts belong to the same cadre and are under the same department i.e. Revenue Department. The contention of the appellant that the respondent is not entitled to the benefits of Resolution dated 04.05.2007 for the reason that he had resigned from the post of Deputy Mamlatdar does not merit acceptance since the respondent had sought prior permission to appear in the recruitment process which was granted, and after he was appointed to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector (Class-III), he had asked his department to relieve him from his service so that he can join his new post. By the order dated 12.12.2013, his request was accepted and the respondent was allowed to join his new the post of Commercial Tax Inspector (Class-III). A perusal of the order dated 12.12.2013 reflects that the respondent had followed the procedure by informing the superiors and accordingly, he was relieved from the post and was allowed to join on the subsequent post. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent without informing his department had applied to the post and after tendering his resignation on the post of the Deputy Mamlatdar, subsequently applied to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector (Class-III), and thereafter, was appointed on the said post. Though, in the affidavit dated 23.06.2015 filed by the appellant no.2 in the writ petition states that the respondent had tendered his resignation on 12.12.2013, no such document has been produced on record. Even if it is assumed that the respondent has resigned from the post then also the appellants cannot deny the benefit of Government Resolution dated 04.05.2007 of re-appointment since he was appointed on the subsequent post as per the required procedure and his department had allowed him to resume on the post after relieving him off from the current post. Thus, the contention raised by the learned AGP runs contrary to the order dated 12.12.2013, which justifies the say of the respondent that it is not a case of simplicitor resignation but he was relieved from his post after obtaining requisite permission. 14. Thus, the contention raised by the learned AGP runs contrary to the order dated 12.12.2013, which justifies the say of the respondent that it is not a case of simplicitor resignation but he was relieved from his post after obtaining requisite permission. 14. As regards the contention raised by the learned AGP that the Resolution dated 04.05.2007 would not apply in the case of the respondent since the appellant cannot be said to be on probation period as envisaged in the said resolution as he was appointed on five years contractual basis does not merit acceptance for the following reasons:- (a) It is not denied that the respondent has been appointed on both the posts through the recruitment process prescribed under the resolution dated 04.06.2009. Vide Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006 issued by the Finance Department, the State Government had introduced a Scheme of appointment of the employees of Class-III and Class-IV posts in all cadres. The preamble of the Government Resolution specifies that all the appointments in Class-III and Class-IV in all cadres shall be made for five years on fixed pay on probation. Condition nos.20 and 22 mention the service as on probation. Condition no.22 specifically stipulates that after an employee who completes period of five years on fixed pay, and he is placed in regular pay scale then he shall not be placed on probation. (b) The aforesaid resolution was further modified by the Resolution dated 04.06.2009 in which it is provided that the government servants, who are appointed on Class-III and Class-IV posts on contractual basis in their case the provision for probation as envisaged under Rule 10-A of the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967, which prescribes one year probation period would not apply and they shall not be placed on probation further after they undergo five years service. Condition no.5 of the said G.R prescribes that all the departmental examination, pre-service training which are to be undertaken during the probation are to be passed during the contractual period. (c) The Government Resolution dated 04.05.2007 does not imply that only those government servants/officers who are confirmed on a post can get the benefit of reverting to their original post during the probation period of recently selected subsequent post. (c) The Government Resolution dated 04.05.2007 does not imply that only those government servants/officers who are confirmed on a post can get the benefit of reverting to their original post during the probation period of recently selected subsequent post. After the introduction of policy of contractual appointment in the year 2006, every Class-III and Class-IV employee of all the cadres in the State have to undergo five years fixed period, and on completion of the same they are placed in the regular pay scale. Thus, an employee who has been confirmed after successfully completing his probation period and is placed in a regular pay scale will never take the risk of applying for a fresh post and undergo rigors of five years in a fixed pay. Thus, the contention of the learned AGP that a confirmed government servant/officer can only get the benefit of G.R. dated 04.05.2007 defies the logic and hence, cannot be accepted. 15. The upshot of the discussion as noted herein above is that the five years period on fixed pay prescribed in the appointment orders of the respondent has to be considered as a probation period in light of the Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006 and 04.06.2009. As a necessary corollary the respondent cannot be denied the benefit of Resolution dated 04.05.2007 which prescribes for claiming re-appointment/repatriation to the original post during the probation period. The Appellants have taken a contrary stand to their own policy. The respondent was not confirmed on the original post, as he was appointed for the period of five years and as per the conditions envisaged in the said resolution, he has right to go back to his original post during such period. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayeshkumar Mahendrabhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) LabIC 252, while examining the case of the Sub-Accountant who was appointed on fixed pay for five years as per the aforesaid policy and subsequently appointed as Accountant on fixed pay after completion of five years has observed thus: "In the result, the Government's decision to offer appointment to the petitioner under order dated 28th May, 2014, on the post of Accountant on fixed salary basis is quashed. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be appointed on the said post of Accountant by protecting his current pay in the cadre of Sub Accountant, as provided under Rule 23, read with Rule 13 of the Pay Rules, 2002. The respondents shall not insist on the petitioner giving an undertaking as provided in the prescribed proforma, appended to the order dated 28th May, 2014. It is however, clarified that the petitioner shall not claim any seniority in the post of Accountant for such period of five years, and this period would be treated as appointment on probation, and ultimately, if he successfully completes the period of probation, after five years, his seniority will be judged on the basis of his rank in the select list." 16. The Division Bench has treated the period of five years on fixed pay as period on probation, and the appointment is treated as appointment on probation. Thus, the benefit of repatriation as envisaged in the resolution dated 04.05.2007 cannot be denied to the respondent on the ground that his appointment was not made on probation but was made for five years on fixed pay on contractual basis. 17. The appellant authorities have also taken shelter under the Resolution dated 21.11.2014 denying the benefits accrued to the respondent under the Resolution dated 04.05.2007. The caption of the resolution dated 21.11.2014 suggests that the same prescribes the procedure in the cases of the contractual government employees who have tendered resignation. The preamble of the Government Resolution indicates that the same was necessitated since it was noticed by the State Government that the contractual employees are re-employed after tendering their resignation. In the present case, as noted herein above, even it is presumed that the respondent had resigned on 12.12.2013, but at the same time it is not denied that he was allowed to resume by the order of even date when he was relieved from the concerned post for joining the subsequent post. Clause-3 prescribes that an employee who has tendered resignation cannot be taken back except the prior approval of the Revenue Department. Clause-11 relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader of the aforesaid Resolution dated 21.11.2014 bars reappointment of those Government Servants, who, after the appointment have tendered the resignation. In the opinion of this Court, the said Government Resolution would not rigorously apply in the case of the respondent. Clause-11 relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader of the aforesaid Resolution dated 21.11.2014 bars reappointment of those Government Servants, who, after the appointment have tendered the resignation. In the opinion of this Court, the said Government Resolution would not rigorously apply in the case of the respondent. In the present case, as noted herein above, the respondent was permitted to apply for the subsequent post and after having selected, he was allowed to be relieved from his original post after he was appointed on subsequent post. The present case will not strictly fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 21.11.2014. In the present case, if the respondent is allowed to join on his original post, the same would not be a fresh appointment. The appellants have not stated that it would be a fresh appointment to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar. Thus, the Government Resolution dated 21.11.2014 does not in any manner applies to the case of the present respondent. Hence, the Revenue department should have acceded to the request made by the respondent for joining on his original post of Deputy Mamlatdar in wake of the fact that he was permitted to appear in the recruitment process and thereafter also, he was allowed to be relieved. 18. On the bedrock of the foregoing observations and discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in giving direction to the appellants to confer the benefits of Resolution dated 04.05.2007 in the case of the present respondent and in directing the appellants to forthwith reappoint the present respondent on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the observations made in Paragraph No.13 of the impugned order deserves to be set aside since the Circular dated 21.11.2014 issued by the Revenue Department is a policy decision regulating the services of the contractual government servants, who after appointment tender their resignations. Such employees having resigned would have no lien on the post and they would have no right to claim re-appointment or appointment on the same post from which they have resigned except in similar case to the respondent in which the appointment is made through regular recruitment process and after obtaining permission from the department. Thus, the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.13 are hereby set aside. Thus, the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.13 are hereby set aside. 19. The appellants are hereby directed to re-appoint the respondent on his original post of Deputy Mamlatdar, and thereby, issue necessary orders to that effect within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of present order. It is clarified that, as reflected in the letter dated 02.05.2014, written by the respondent, he will not be entitled to the seniority. The appeal is partly allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.