Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 99 (RAJ)

Sumer Singh S/o Ram Kishore v. Union Of India

2024-01-16

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this rate petition me kindly be allowed with cost and; i. By an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondents whereby, offer of appointment on the post of SI/GD dated 22.10.2022 (Anx-01) may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. By an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned letter dated 07.02.2023 (Anx-04) passed by the respondents whereby, the request to reconsider the cancellation of offer of appointment may kindly be set aside and quashed. iii. By an appropriate order or direction the respondent me kindly be directed to reissuance of offer of appointment with all consequential benefits. iv. Any other appropriate rate order or direction with this honorable court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that an advertisement was issued by the Staff Selection Commission for the post of Sub-Inspector (General Duty) (Male) by conducting examination for the same in the year 2020, in pursuance whereof the petitioner submitted his application. Thereafter, an admission card was issued to the petitioner for Preliminary Examination, for which the petitioner appeared and was later on declared successful, whereafter Main Examination was conducted followed by the Physical Fitness Test; in both the said examination/test, the petitioner stood qualified, and consequently, he was declared successful for the post in question and an offer of appointment was made to the petitioner by respondent-GC-I CRPF, Ajmer with a direction to report at Group Centre-I Ajmer on or before 21.11.2022 vide letter dated 22.10.2022. 2.1. However, due to certain health issues, the petitioner could not report on the specified date at Ajmer and sought extension for the same vide letter dated 19.11.2022, whereafter vide call letter dated 26.11.2022, the petitioner was called upon to join on 22.12.2022 and also vide letter dated 12.12.2022, the respondents rejected the extension request of the petitioner. 2.2. 2.1. However, due to certain health issues, the petitioner could not report on the specified date at Ajmer and sought extension for the same vide letter dated 19.11.2022, whereafter vide call letter dated 26.11.2022, the petitioner was called upon to join on 22.12.2022 and also vide letter dated 12.12.2022, the respondents rejected the extension request of the petitioner. 2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner again requested for extension vide registered post letter dated 20.12.2022 and also sent email on 22.12.2022, as the petitioner’s mother was facing major health issues, however the respondents on 29/30.12.2022 cancelled the offer of appointment of the petitioner, whereafter representation was submitted by the petitioner before the respondents on 18.01.2023, however, the same came to be rejected by letter dated 07.02.2023. Aggrieved of the said impugned decisions taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred the present petition claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner was done without following the due process, as per which, the joining can be extended upto six months on request of candidate(s), and thus the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner was highly illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had in a timely manner intimated the concerned respondent authorities with regard to the reasons for being unable to report on the assigned date, thus, the petitioner cannot be penalized with cancellation of offer of appointment. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s mother was severely ill and the petitioner being the only one to take care of her, it became difficult for him to join, and accordingly, the same was communicated to the respondent authorities within time. 3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent authorities have cancelled the offer of appointment of the petitioner in a vague, non-speaking and mechanical manner without duly adhering to the prescriptions of the statutory Rule. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Mr. 3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent authorities have cancelled the offer of appointment of the petitioner in a vague, non-speaking and mechanical manner without duly adhering to the prescriptions of the statutory Rule. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit, appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the respondent authorities had received the petitioner’s request for extension of his joining date and his request was forwarded to the Rajasthan Sector HQR for consideration, which came to be rejected and the petitioner was accordingly informed of the same vide letter dated 12.12.2022; further a letter dated 26.11.2022 had been issued to the petitioner due to his non-reporting on 21.11.2022 directing him to join for duty on or before 22.12.2022. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had again forwarded an application dated 17.12.2022 for extension time by 60 days for joining, for the reason that his mother was critically ill, but the same was received on 24.12.2022 after the expiry of the next joining date i.e. 22.12.2022; however the said request of the petitioner was received without attaching any medical documents of his mother. 4.2. Learned counsel also submits that in response to the petitioner’s representation, the Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi vide letter no. R.II-25/-2020-Rectt.(Dasis)-DA-11 dated 07.02.2023 informed the petitioner that since he failed to join for his duty despite grant of ample opportunity, his offer of appointment was cancelled vide letter dated 29/30.12.2022; not only this, but there exists no provision for restoration of appointment on the post in question, after cancellation of candidature, as requested by the petitioner. 4.3. Learned counsel further submits that as per the procedure contained in Office M No. 35016/2/93-Estt(D) dated 09.08.1995, it was decided to reduce the maximum time upto which an offer of appointment can be kept open from nine months to six months; further the offer of appointment should clearly specify the period (normally not exceeding one or two months) whereafter the offer would lapse automatically if a candidate does not join within the specified period. However, if a request for extension is received then the same may be considered but not beyond a period of three months and only in exceptional cases upto six months from the original date of appointment. 5. However, if a request for extension is received then the same may be considered but not beyond a period of three months and only in exceptional cases upto six months from the original date of appointment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner applied for the post in question pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement by way of conducting Examination 2020, subsequent to which the petitioner qualified in all the rounds of the examination and was given offer of appointment dated 22.10.2022 directing him to report for duty at the concerned place on or before 21.11.2022, however, the petitioner requested for extension of his joining on duty, given his ill health and the same came to be rejected by the concerned authorities. Further vide letter dated 26.11.2022, the petitioner had been directed to join at the concerned place on or before 22.12.2022, as he had not joined at the aforesaid scheduled date, yet again, the petitioner did not join for his duty and forwarded an application for extension of his joining due to the poor health of his mother; the respondents cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as he did not report on duty within the specified period of time. 7. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the Office Memorandum No. 35016/2/93-Est(D) by the Department of Personal and Training (Annexure 12) dated 09.08.1995, as hereunder: “2. The Staff Side of the Departmental Council (JCM) of DOP&T have demanded that direct recruits may be allowed a maximum three months for joining instead of nine months provided for in the OM under reference so as to avoid delay in preparation and issue of select/seniority list. The matter has been examined in consultation with the UPSC and it has been decided to reduce from nine months to six months the maximum time upto which an offer of appointment can be kept open. In other words an offer of appointment should clearly specify the period (which shall not normally exceed one or two months) after which the offer would lapse automatically if the candidate did not join within the specified period. If however within the specified period, a request is received from the candidate for extension of time, it may be considered by the Ministries/Deptts. If however within the specified period, a request is received from the candidate for extension of time, it may be considered by the Ministries/Deptts. but extension beyond three months should not be granted liberally and it may be granted only as an exception where facts and circumstances so warrant and in any case only upto a maximum of six months from the date of issue of the original offer of a appointment. An offer of appointment would lapse automatically after the expiry of six months from the date of issue of the original offer of appointment.” 8. This Court further observes that the respondent authorities had in accordance with the aforementioned Office Memorandum clearly given extension of an entire month as per their discretion to the petitioner, yet the petitioner failed to join for his duty on two occasions, one at the time of initial offer of appointment i.e. 21.11.2022, and secondly, after extension i.e. 22.12.2022; further the petitioner attached no medical certificates/documents of his mother showcasing that she was in fact in poor health at the relevant time. 9. This Court further observes that the petitioner had forwarded an application for extending his joining date due to ill health, however the same came to be rejected and vide letter dated 12.12.2022, the petitioner was informed to report for his duty on or before 22.12.2022 and also vide letter dated 26.11.2022, the petitioner’s date of joining had been extended as he had not reported on the scheduled date i.e. 21.11.2022, thus, it is clear that the respondent authorities had of their own volition granted an extension of one month to the petitioner, yet the petitioner had failed to join his duty on 22.12.2022. 10. This Court also observes that the petitioner had again forwarded an application for extension of his joining period on 17.12.2022, however the same had been received by the respondent authorities on 24.12.2022, after the expiry of the scheduled date of joining i.e. on 22.12.2022; since the petitioner again did not join his duty on the required date, thus the respondent authorities cancelled his offer of appointment vide letter dated 29/30.12.2022; in furtherance, vide letter dated 07.02.2023, the respondent authorities have also cleared that no provision for restoring of appointment to the post in question exists after cancellation of candidature. 11. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and 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. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.