JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief: “(i) That the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the Petitioner for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Dermatology) in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (HP).” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are that petitioner herein, after having done MBBS in 2007, was appointed as Medical Officer in the Health Department, Himachal Pradesh, in year 2008 on contract basis. Services of the petitioner were regularized subsequently on 10.01.2012. While in service, petitioner also completed MD in the subject of Dermatology, Venerology and Leprology from Himachal Pradesh University during the period 2012-15. In the year 2018, petitioner was promoted as Senior Resident (Dermatology) on tenure basis and thereafter, was designated as Assistant Professor in Department of Dermatology in year 2021. 3. On 06.11.2023, respondent No. 4 i.e. AIIMS, Bilaspur, issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Professor, Additional Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors. Petitioner, being fully eligible for appointment against the post of Assistant Professor (Dermatology), also submitted an application in response to the said advertisement. Though on 08.12.2023, AIIMS, Bilaspur, included the name of the petitioner in the list of provisionally eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professor, but with remarks “Subject to submission of NOC from Competent Authority”. Though case of the petitioner was duly forwarded to respondent No. 2, vide communication dated 25.11.2023, but since nothing was heard from respondent, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as reproduced herein above. 4. This Court, vide order dated 13.12.2023, directed respondents to issue provisional No Objection Certificate to the petitioner, enabling her to participate in the selection process initiated by the AIIMS, Bilaspur. Though petitioner participated in selection process, pursuant to her being granted provisional No Objection Certificate, but despite her being selected against the post in question in the institute concerned, she has not been able to join till date for want of final No Objection Certificate . 5. Though petitioner participated in selection process, pursuant to her being granted provisional No Objection Certificate, but despite her being selected against the post in question in the institute concerned, she has not been able to join till date for want of final No Objection Certificate . 5. By way of filing detailed reply, respondents No. 1 to 3 have attempted to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that on account of acute shortage of staff, she cannot be relieved by them. Since during proceedings of the case, issue with regard to bond, if any, furnished by the petitioner emerged and it was claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that period of bond furnished by the petitioner has already elapsed, this Court specifically called upon learned Additional Advocate General, vide order dated 28.04.2025, to have instructions that what is the technical hitch in accepting the resignation tendered by the petitioner. Pursuant to afore order passed by this Court, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, has made available communication dated 01.05.2025 issued under the signatures of Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, which reads as under: NO. HFW-H (I)B(3)273/2002 HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, HIMACHAL PRADESH To The Ld. Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1. Dated Shimla-9, the Subject:- CWP No. 10213/2023 Dr. Sandhya Kumari Vs. State of HP & Ors. Sir, Kindly refer to the above titled CWP as well as orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court therein on 28.04.2025 in the above titled CWP and as per the directions of the Government vide letter No.HFW-D(E)3-115/23 dated 26-4-2025. In this regard, it is submitted that the request of the petitioner for NOC/technical resignation could not have been acceded to by the Respondent State for the just and proper reason of acute shortage of Specialist Doctors in the State of HP. Subsequently, the petitioner on the recommendation of the HP Public Service Commission stood appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department/Specialty of Dermatology in IGMC Shimla vide Government notification dated 07.03.2024 as is continuing as such. A set of four copies of the above instructions is being enclosed and sent herewith for favour of kind information and record with the request that the same may very kindly be brought on record of the Hon'ble Court on 02.05.2025, or on next date of hearing (s) please. Encls: As above. Yours faithfully Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh 6. A set of four copies of the above instructions is being enclosed and sent herewith for favour of kind information and record with the request that the same may very kindly be brought on record of the Hon'ble Court on 02.05.2025, or on next date of hearing (s) please. Encls: As above. Yours faithfully Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh 6. As per aforesaid communication, sole reason for not accepting the technical resignation submitted by the petitioner is “acute shortage of staff”. In the case at hand neither final No Objection Certificate has been issued by the respondents nor technical resignation submitted by the petitioner has been accepted till date, despite her selection against the post of Assistant Professor (Dermatology) in the AIIMS, Bilaspur. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though petitioner at the time of her pursuing MD course had furnished bond, but at the time of her making application for post of Assistant Professor, Department of Dermatology, AIIMS, Bilaspur, bond period had expired, meaning thereby, at the time of making application at AIIMS, Bilaspur, she was not bound by any undertaking given by her to the respondents. Otherwise also, careful perusal of reply filed by the respondents nowhere suggests that at present petitioner is bound by the bond executed by her at the time of pursuing MD Course, rather her prayer for grant of final No Objection Certificate and acceptance of the technical resignation is being denied on account of acute shortage of staff. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that there is paucity of doctors in the State and in the event of acceptance of technical resignation tendered by the petitioner, there may be shortfall in the faculty, which may attract monetary penalties for the college concerned on account of its having not fulfilled guidelines/ parameters laid down by the NMC, but this Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission of Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. He further submitted that though technical resignation tendered by the petitioner has already been rejected vide order dated 27.12.2023, but till date same has not been laid challenge in the instant proceedings. 8. Resignation of an employee cannot be rejected on the grounds set up by the respondents/State. Needless to say, every individual has the right to progress in his/her career. 8. Resignation of an employee cannot be rejected on the grounds set up by the respondents/State. Needless to say, every individual has the right to progress in his/her career. Since petitioner has already stands selected against the post of Assistant Professor in the premier institution i.e. AIIMS, Bilaspur, coupled with the fact that AIIMS, Bilaspur, is situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh, she has every right to tender her resignation, enabling her to join new institute. To meet the shortfall, if any, in faculty, respondents-State has several options, including filling the posts through direct recruitment or promotion in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules." 9. In similar facts and circumstances, Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 450 of 2024 titled Ajay Kumar Chauhan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, rejected the plea of shortage of staff and directed the respondents to accept the resignation forthwith. It would be apt to take note of following paras: “8. On 17.12.2024, Co-ordinate Division Bench had observed as under:- “The resignation tendered by the appellant has been rejected by the State Government on the ground that there is an acute shortage of Medical Officers (Specialists) in the State. However, we find that the same by itself cannot be a reason enough which can bind an unwilling employee to serve the State. Therefore, the respondent-State to explain its stand on the next date of hearing.” 9. Thereafter, the applicant/appellant has filed this application on 26.12.2024 with the submission that his resignation be accepted as a unconditional resignation, as he is unwilling to serve with the present employer as he has been offered appointment in AIIMS Bilaspur and he wants to excel his career in future. 10. In view of this application, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to have instructions in this regard. 11. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has expressed his inability to have instructions because of closure of offices on account of death of Ex-Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. 12. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that yesterday offices were open and delay in adjudication of matter would hamper his future causing irreparable loss to him as AIIMS Authority may withdraw the offer of appointment. 13. Manmohan Singh. 12. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that yesterday offices were open and delay in adjudication of matter would hamper his future causing irreparable loss to him as AIIMS Authority may withdraw the offer of appointment. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application is taken for consideration and considering the averments made in application and the submissions made on behalf of parties, the applicant/appellant is permitted and directed to submit his unconditional resignation to the Principal Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on or before 30.12.2024 and in such eventuality, such resignation shall be accepted by the concerned Authority on the very same day, subject to final outcome of present appeal and thereafter, applicant/appellant shall be at liberty to join in AIIMS Bilaspur or wherever he intends to join.” 10. In the aforesaid Order, Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically held that in case an employee is not willing to serve the department, he cannot be forced to do so. 11. In another case, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.1.2025, in LPA No. 25 of 2025, titled Dr. Trilok Chand v. Union of India and Anr., has deprecated the action of the respondents in denying NOC to the petitioner therein, who wanted to apply for post of Assistant Professor ENT in AIIMS Bilaspur. In the aforesaid case, Division Bench of this Court categorically ruled that shortfall of vacancy cannot be a valid ground for the State to deny NOC. 12. While placing reliance upon aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, this Court in similar facts and circumstances in CWP No. 4319 of 2025 titled as Deepanshu Dhiman Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 27.03.2025, directed respondents to accept the resignation of doctor, named hereinabove. 13. It is not in dispute that pursuant to directions contained in afore judgments, respondents not only issued final No Objection Certificates, but also accepted the resignation, meaning thereby judgments pressed into service already stand implemented. Moreover, since there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner at this stage is bound by any undertaking or bond furnished by her, nothing prevents her from tendering her resignation. Moreover, since there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner at this stage is bound by any undertaking or bond furnished by her, nothing prevents her from tendering her resignation. Petitioner, who is a qualified doctor, cannot be expected to work like a slave, she, after her having done specialization in the subject of Dermatology, has every right to make progress in her career by joining premier institution. 14. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Association of Medical Super Specialty Aspirants and Residents (supra) as well as judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.93 of 2024, titled State of H.P. and Others Vs. Dr. Rajeev Sandal and Another, vehemently argued that once petitioner has submitted bond, she is under obligation to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for the bond period and on account of afore fact, respondent-State cannot be compelled to issue N.O.C. to the petitioner enabling him to join at AIIMS, Bilaspur. 15. There cannot be any quarrel with proposition of law laid down in cases, detailed hereinabove, that bonds executed by Doctors, after their having done MBBS, medical courses, etc., to serve the State are binding and can be enforced, but since petitioner herein has already served the bond period, she cannot be compelled to work against her wishes. Very purpose and object of furnishing bond is to ensure that Doctor, who has studied on Government expenditure, is made to work for State, after his/her having done MBBS Course, Medical Courses etc., but once bond period has been already served, prayer made on behalf of petitioner for grant of NOC as well as acceptance of resignation cannot be refused. Otherwise also, if the judgments pressed into service are taken into consideration, same are not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that in afore cases, very condition of execution of bond, if any, at the time of pursuing higher studies by the Doctors was laid challenge. Otherwise also, if the judgments pressed into service are taken into consideration, same are not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that in afore cases, very condition of execution of bond, if any, at the time of pursuing higher studies by the Doctors was laid challenge. In afore cases, petitioner claimed that bond, being restraint on their professional activity, if any is executed, would fall under the expression “forced labour” violating Article 23 of the Constitution, however, such plea was not accepted by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Division Bench of this Court, rather, it specifically came to be held in aforesaid judgments that all the Doctors, who had executed compulsory bonds would be bound by the conditions contained therein. 16. Similarly, this Court finds no force in the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that on account of grant of NOC, public at large shall suffer on account of paucity of Doctors, in view of the fact that pursuant to grant of NOC, if any, petitioner herein shall be joining AIIMS, Bilaspur, which is a premium institution, established by the Central Government. Since afore institution falls within the State of Himachal Pradesh, it cannot be said that interest of State would not be adequately protected on account of grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner, rather, this Court is of the view that on account of posting of the petitioner at AIIMS, Bilaspur, public at large shall be benefited. 17. Though an objection has been taken from respondent side that the petitioner has not sought quashing of order rejecting her prayer for accepting technical resignation, but there is a famous saying, “fiat justitia ruat coelum” meaning “let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” 18. "Moulding of relief" principle was recognized by the Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, AIR 1975 SC 1709. It was observed therein that though the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding, the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process is also to be noted. It was observed therein that though the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding, the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process is also to be noted. Justice VR Krishna Iyer observed: "If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief for the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decrotal remedy. Equity justifies bending the // 16 // rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice--subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling (actors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.” 19. Since the factum of petitioner omitting to have challenged rejection of her technical resignation has come to the notice of the court and same has fundamental impact on the right of the petitioner, as such, this court can mould the relief to do substantial justice. Objection raised thus by learned Additional Advocate General that such relief has not been claimed by the petitioner, does not stand ground, especially when the petitioner has participated in the selection process, on the basis of provisional NOC issued in her favour by the respondent State and she has been selected for the post in question 20. Mr. Objection raised thus by learned Additional Advocate General that such relief has not been claimed by the petitioner, does not stand ground, especially when the petitioner has participated in the selection process, on the basis of provisional NOC issued in her favour by the respondent State and she has been selected for the post in question 20. Mr. Shiv Pal Minhas, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4, fairly states that the post qua which petitioner stands selected in year 2023 is still vacant, and as such, pursuant to the offer made in favour of the petitioner, she can join AIIMS, Bilaspur. 21. Consequently, in view of the above, this court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Technical resignation tendered by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been accepted. Respondents are directed to relieve the petitioner immediately. Petitioner shall be entitled to all service benefits arising out of her service with the respondents in accordance with law. 22. Though there is nothing on record with regard to cancellation of offer of appointment given to the petitioner by AIIMS, Bilaspur, as Assistant Professor in the Department of Dermatology, but yet this Court taking note of the fact that present petition remained pending for considerable time, coupled with the fact that petitioner shall be tendering his technical resignation in the State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court hopes and trusts that no undue hurdle, if any, shall be created by respondent No.4, while accepting his joining, in terms of his selection made in the year 2023 23. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. 24. Registry to list the case at hand for compliance on13.05.2025.