Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2582 (RAJ)

Ajay Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-10-12

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the impugned letter dated 11.05.2015 (Annex.-9) whereby the applications of the petitioners for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) and relieving them from the police services have been rejected. 2. Vide interim order dated 19.05.2015, the respondents were directed to relieve the petitioners for joining the post of Teacher Grade-III. However, such joining was directed to remain subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed on the post of Constable (A.P.) and during the period of their probation, they sought permission from the respondent-Department to appear in the examination to be conducted for the post of Teacher Grade-III. The said applications remained pending before the respondent-Department and no order was passed on the same. Meanwhile, the petitioners participated in the examination for Teacher Grade-III and got selected. After being selected, the petitioners moved the applications for being relieved from the respondent-Department to join their new post but the same were rejected on the ground that no permission was granted by the Department to the petitioners to appear in the examination and therefore, they cannot be relieved from the police services. Aggrieved against the said rejection, the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that very many similar candidates, to be specific Rama Ram, Jaisa Ram and Shokat Ali etc. were granted permission and even relieved from the police department after their selection as Teacher Grade-III. She further relied upon the judgments passed in Dhanraj Meena v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12846/2017, decided on 15.01.2018 and Ranjeet Singh v. State & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3924/2015, decided on 27.02.2018. She submitted that the case of the petitioners being totally akin to Ranjeet Singh's case (supra), they also deserve to be granted the NOC from the respondent-Department. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of Rule 22B (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, it is mandatory upon a candidate to resign from the present service to join the new service and also to refund the emoluments paid to him during the period of the training undergone with the first Department excluding the amounts qua the Travelling and Daily Allowances. He further submitted that so far as the case of Rama Ram is concerned, the petitioners cannot be kept on an equal footing with Rama Ram as the technical qualifications of Rama Ram had been mentioned in his service record whereas the B.Ed. qualification of the present petitioners was not mentioned in their service record, meaning thereby they concealed the same and therefore, they cannot be granted the NOC by the Police Department. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, the same cannot be gone into by this Court as the impugned order vide which the permission for relieving and grant of NOC has been rejected does not speak of any such reason. The impugned order has been passed only on the premise that the permission for appearing in the examination was not granted to the petitioners and therefore, they cannot be relieved. So far as the grant of permission to appear in the examination for Teacher Grade-III is concerned, it is clear on record that the applications for seeking permission were very well filed by the petitioners but no order on the same was passed by the respondent-Authorities and the same remained pending. Therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondent-Authorities cannot be a reason to penalise the petitioners. Had the respondent-Authorities any objection regarding the grant of permission to the petitioners to appear in the examination, the applications would have been rejected at that stage itself but the same was not done and therefore, rejection of the applications after the petitioners having participated in the recruitment process and having been selected cannot be held to be valid. Moresoever, a perusal of the record of Ranjeet Singh's case (supra) makes it clear that the facts in Ranjeet Singh's case (supra) and in the present writ petition are totally akin. The writ petition of Ranjeet Singh was allowed on 27.02.2018 relying upon the case of Dhanraj Meena and therefore too, the case of the petitioners cannot be differentiated from that of Ranjeet Singh's case (supra). In Dhanraj Meena's case (supra), it was observed as under:- "This Court in the case of Saroj & Ors. The writ petition of Ranjeet Singh was allowed on 27.02.2018 relying upon the case of Dhanraj Meena and therefore too, the case of the petitioners cannot be differentiated from that of Ranjeet Singh's case (supra). In Dhanraj Meena's case (supra), it was observed as under:- "This Court in the case of Saroj & Ors. v. State & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2490/2015, decided on 22.05.2015 directed for relieving of the petitioners for joining on the new post and directed that in case of delay on account of the respondents in not permitting such relieving, the outer date for joining shall stand extended. Further directions were given for counting of length of service in the previous assignment for the purpose of service benefits as per the applicable Service Rules." 8. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the respondents regarding the payment of the training expenses/emoluments etc. paid to the petitioners is concerned, the same is not a dispute raised in the present writ petition and therefore, cannot be adjudicated by this Court. 9. In view of the above observations, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. As vide interim order, the petitioners have already been relieved to join their new Department, the said order is made absolute and the respondent-Authorities are directed to issue 'No Objection Certificate' for the purpose in favour of the petitioners forthwith. 10. All the pending applications stand disposed of.