JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to: (i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 64,604/- recovered from the petitioner vide receipt dated 23.05.2013 (Annex.2). (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of the writ may be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable in the police department vide order dated 29.08.2011. The Forest Department issued an advertisement on 17.01.2013 for the post of Forest Guard, and the petitioner applied for the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard vide order dated 30.05.2013, and prior to such appointment, the petitioner resigned from the previous appointment on the post of Constable, which was accepted on 23.05.2013, after deposition of the training expenses and salary totalling Rs. 64,604/- by the petitioner. As per the petitioner, the demand of deposition of the aforesaid sum as a condition precedent for acceptance of the resignation was not a valid and lawful demand, and thus, being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined the duties as Forest Guard after tendering due resignation, after rendering dedicated services as Constable in the police department, and therefore, the recovery of training expenses and salary by the respondents is not justified in law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner performed his duties as Constable and thereafter the respondents recovered the training expenses and salary from the petitioner for acceptance of the resignation, which impugned action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3.2. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner performed his duties as Constable and thereafter the respondents recovered the training expenses and salary from the petitioner for acceptance of the resignation, which impugned action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (a) Bal Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in S.B.C.W.P. No. 13444/2019 Another Connected Matter, decided on 19.05.2023, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. (b) Ramchandra Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in S.B.C.W.P. No. 11254/2016 and Others Connected Matters, decided on 07.10.2016, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable vide order 29.08.2011 on a fixed remuneration, and was put to serve two years probation period. It was further submitted that as per Rule 22-B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and Circular No. 636 dated 18.02.2013 issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, if an employee resigns during the training period and within a period of two years after completion of training period and joining of new service, then such employee is required to refund/deposit the amount incurred by the department on training and other benefits provided to him during the training period. Therefore, as per learned counsel, it was mandatory for the petitioner to deposit the amount in question with the State exchequer as a condition precedent for acceptance of his resignation to enable him to join his services as Forest Guard. 4.1. It was also submitted that the Home (Group-1) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur issued a letter no. F.4 (98) Home-1/2015 dated 13.07.2016 as well as circular dated 06.03.2019, which substantiates the case of the respondents regarding mandatory condition of deposition of the amount in question by the petitioner for enabling him to join his new service. Furthermore, as per learned counsel, the training of the petitioner as Constable is not useful for his current employment in the Forest Department of the State and therefore, in compliance of the aforesaid circulars, the petitioner was liable to deposit the amount in question. 4.2. Furthermore, as per learned counsel, the training of the petitioner as Constable is not useful for his current employment in the Forest Department of the State and therefore, in compliance of the aforesaid circulars, the petitioner was liable to deposit the amount in question. 4.2. It was further submitted that the aforesaid position has also been clarified and reiterated in letters dated 01.12.2016 & 09.05.2018 issued by the Director General of Police, Jaipur. It was also submitted that the petitioner deposited the amount in question in the year of 2013, and now at this belated stage, he has filed the present petitioner seeking a direction from this Hon’ble Court for refund of the said amount, which is not maintainable, more particularly, after a huge delay. 4.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (a) Arun Choudhary and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in S.B.C.W.P. No. 5255/2013, decided on 11.08.2014 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench (b) S.S. Balu and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others (2009) 2 SCC 479 5. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable, whereafter, in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Forest Department, the petitioner applied for the recruitment under the said advertisement, and after due selection process, the petitioner was selected for the post of Forest Guard. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard vide order dated 30.05.2013, and prior thereto, he has tendered his resignation before the respondent department from the post of Constable, which was accepted on 23.05.2013 after deposition of the amount in question towards the expenses incurred on training and salary of the petitioner by the respondent department. 7. This Court further observes that the petitioner was appointed as Constable vide order dated 29.08.2011 and within 2 years of such appointment, he has submitted his resignation from the said post, which was accepted on 23.05.2013, and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner resigned from his earlier service within a period of two years after completion of training period, which clearly falls under Rule 22-B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951; relevant portion of the said Rule is reproduced as hereunder: 22B. (1) A Government servant who is deputed for training within India for a period of more than 3 months and is treated as on duty under rule 7(8)(b), shall if he resigns or takes up another employment during the period of such training or within one/two years after the completion thereof, refund to the Government the emoluments paid to him during the period of such training together with other expenses incurred by Government on such training but excluding the amounts paid to him by way of travelling and daily allowances under the relevant rules: Provided that no such refund shall be required to be made if the training imparted to the Government servant is in the opinion of the Government likely to prove useful in the new appointment also. 8. This Court also observes that the State Government issued various circulars/letters, as above, clarifying that if an employee resigns during the training period and within a period of two years after completion of training period and joining of new service, then such employee shall be liable to deposit the amount incurred by the department on his training and other benefits provided to him during the training period. Relevant portion of the Circular/Letter dated 30.12.2008 is reproduced as hereunder: ^^orZeku esa Ápfyr ÁfØ;k ds vuqlkj jktLFkku iqfyl esa dkfuŒ ds in ij HkrhZ gksus ds le; Áf'k{k.kfFkZ;ksa ls ca/ki= Hkjok;k tkrk gSA ca/ki= esa nh xbZ 'krksZ ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds iwoZ LoSPNk ls R;kx i= nsus ij mls Hkqxrku fd;s x;s osru ,oa HkRrksa ds vfrfjDr Áf'k{k.k ij O;; dh xbZ jkf'k olwy djus dk vf/kdkj jkT; ljdkj dks gSA iqfyl foHkkx esa uofu;qDr dkfuŒ ls Áf'k{k.k ij fd;s x;s O;; dh olwyh ds laca/k esa fuEu fn'kk&funsZ'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS%& iqfyl foHkkx ds dqN Áf'k{k.k laLFkkuksa ls ÁkIr Áf'k{k.k ij O;; dh okLrfod fLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij orZeku esa Áf'k{k.k ds nkSjku ÁR;sd fjØqV dkfuŒ ds Áf'k{k.k ij vkSlru Áfrfnu 100@& O;; gksrs gSA vr% LoSPNk ls R;kx i= nsus okys fjØqV dkfuŒ ds Áf'k{k.k ij O;; dh xbZ jkf'k dh x.kuk 100@& :i;s Áfrfnu ds fglkc ls dh tk;sxhA vk/ks fnu ds Áf'k{k.k dh x.kuk ,d fnu ds fglkc ls gh dh tkosxhA mDr jkf'k esa ÁR;sd foRrh; o"kZ esa 10 Áfr'kr dh o`f) djrs gq, Áfrfnu Áf'k{k.k ij O;; dh x.kuk dh tkosxhA mnkgj.kkFkZ%& 1- foRrh; o"kZ 2008&09 ds fy, :i;s 100-00 2- foRrh; o"kZ 2009&10 ds fy, :i;s 110-00 vr% Hkfo"; esa fjØqV dkfuŒ }kjk LoSPNk ls R;kx i= ÁLrqr djus ij mlls mijksDrkuqlkj Áf'k{k.k O;; ,oa osru HkRrksa dh jkf'k dh olwyh dh tkosA** Relevant portion of the Circular/Letter dated 01.12.2016 is reproduced as hereunder: ^^v/khuLFk dk;kZy;ksa }kjk ,sls fu.kZ;ksa dh fHkUu&fHkUu rjg ls O;k[;k djrs gq, vyx&vyx vkns'k tkjh dj olwyh xbZ osru HkRrksa dh jkf'k ;kfpdkdrkZvksa dks okil ykSVkbZ xbZ gSA bl fo"k; dk eq[;ky; Lrj ij foRrh; ,oa fof/kd n`f"V ls ijh{k.k djokus ij ;g ik;k x;k fd ,sls Ádj.kksa esa olwyh ds fy;s ifji= Øekad 7922 fnukad 30-12-2008 esa fLFkfr iw.kZr;k Li"V dh tk pqdh gSA vr% lh/kh HkrhZ ls fu;qDr iqfyl dfeZ;ksa ds Áf'k{k.k dky ¼ifjoh{kk vof/k½ esa R;kx i= nsdj tkus okyksa ls ifji= Øekad 7922 fnukad 30-12-2008 ds vuqlkj ifjoh{kk vof/k esa Hkqxrku fd;s x;s ifjykHkksa o Áf'k{k.k ij gq;s O;; dh olwyh lqfuf'pr dh tkosA dfri; dk;kZy;ksa }kjk mijksDrkuqlkj fLFkfr Li"V djus ds mijkUr Hkh Áf'k{k.k dky esa R;kx i= nsus ij olwy dh xbZ osru HkRrksa dh jkf'k dks okil ykSVkus gsrq vkns'k tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSA vr% bl dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh i= Øekad 3343 fnukad 05-07-2016 dh dBksjrk ls ikyuk lqfuf'pr dh tkosA** Relevant portion of the Circular/Letter dated 06.03.2019 is reproduced as hereunder: ^^mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr i=ksa ds Øe esa funsZ'kkuqlkj ys[k gS fd iqfyl lsok ls vU; lsok esa tkus ij Áf'k{k.k O;; vkfn dh olwyh ds lac/k esa foRr foHkkx dk ekxZn'kZu mudh vkbZŒMhŒ la[;k 101900594 fnukad 28-02-2019 ds }kjk ijke'kZ bl Ádkj gS%& ¼1½ iqfyl dkfeZd ftUgsa rhu ekg ;k vf/kd ds fy;s Áf'k{k.k ij j[kk x;k Fkk muds }kjk iqfyl Áf'k{k.k ds nkSjku ;k Áf'k{k.k ÁkfIr ds ckn vU; in ij p;fur gksus ij iqfyl lsok ls R;kx i= nsdj ;k dk;Z eqDr gksdj tkus dh fLFkfr esa Áf'k{k.k ij ljdkj }kjk fd;s x;s O;; ds lkFk Áf'k{k.k vfo/k esa ÁkIr osru HkRrs Hkh ykSVkus gksxsA ;fn ÁkIr Áf'k{k.k ubZ fu;qfDr esa Hkh mi;ksxh fl) gks rks bl Ádkj dh olwyh vko';d ugha gksxhA ,sls iqfyldehZ ds }kjk ÁkIr Áf'k{k.k vU; ubZ fu;qfDr ds fy, mi;ksxh gS vFkok ugha bldk fu.kZ; foHkkx Lrj ij fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA Á'kklfud foHkkx }kjk fn;s x;s Áf'k{k.k dh fo"k;oLrq dk Li"V mYys[k fd;k tkos rFkk ubZ fu;qfDr esa mDr Áf'k{k.k D;ksa mi;ksxh ugha ekuk x;k gS] bl ckcr Li"V dkj.k vafdr djrs gq, olwyh ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus pkfg;sA** 9. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Arun Choudhary and Others (Supra), as hereunder: “Having regard to the facts aforesaid especially the latest judgment of the coordinate bench rendered at Principal Seat in Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8934/2013 decided on 28.1.2014, the present petitions deserve to be disposed of with direction that if the petitioners have already deposited the amount of training expenses as per the circular of the Director General of Police dated 30.9.2008, the respondent-Education Department shall release their salary. The fact about the deposit of the training expenses shall be verified by the concerned Superintendent of Police on the petitioners' approaching him along with copy of this order, who shall have the training expenses computed as per the aforesaid circular dated 30.9.2008. On NOC being issued by him, the Education Department shall release the salary of the petitioners. It is further directed that if any amount in excess is found to have been deposited by the petitioners or recovered from them under the head of training expenses, the same is liable to be refunded to the petitioners within two months..........” 10. This Court further observes that in view of the unambiguous and categorical clarification made by the State Government in the aforementioned Circulars/Letters, the present petitioner, who has resigned from the post of Constable under the respondent department within a period of two years of his joining the said post, is not entitled for refund of the amount in question recovered from him by the respondent department. 11. This Court also observes that apart from the above, once the petitioner’s resignation was accepted way back on 23.05.2013 and he has already joined his new post of Forest Guard under the Forest Department, then, more particularly, after a lapse of nine years, and without any cogent and justifiable reason, the relief sought for in the present writ petition is not worthy of being granted in the instant petition. 12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.