Ajay Singh And Anr vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 12229 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5107/2015

1. Ajay Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged 30 years, Resident of Behind Sikh Gurudwara, Bikaner Road, Nagaur (Raj.)

2. Rewat Ram S/o Shri Mangi Lal, Aged 32 years, Resident of Village Post Anawana, Via Lavera, Bawardi, Jodhpur

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan to be served through The secretary to the Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.

3. The Superintended of Police (Rural), Jodhpur.

4. Reserved Inspector, Police Line, I.R.F., Jodhpur Rural

5. Panchayat Samiti, Bawari, District Jodhpur through Vikas Adhikari

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepika Vyas Mr. Ashwini Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa, AGC

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

12/10/2022

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.

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.

(2 of 5) [CW-5107/2015]

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.

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.

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

(3 of 5) [CW-5107/2015]

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.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

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

(4 of 5) [CW-5107/2015]

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. 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."

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.

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

(5 of 5) [CW-5107/2015]

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.

All the pending applications stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 78-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)