Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv v. UNION OF INDIA ORS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT(ORAL) 20.03.2025 The petitioner joined as Assistant Commandant in the Central %

1. Reserve Police Force1 on 15 May 2010. He was posted at 93 Bn Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and has been continuing there since.

2. On 27 November 2017, the petitioner applied for resignation from the post of Assistant Commandant, on account of certain family issues, vide the following communication: “To, The Honourable President of India Rashtrapati bhawan New Delhi-110004 1 CRPF W.P.(C) 3904/2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:22.04.2025 16:14:12 (THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL) SUB- RESIGNATION LETTER Most respectively it is submitted that I Neeraj kumar Uttam assistant commandant IRLA No 8404, CRPF is posted in 93 Bn. CRPF Lucknow (UP). I joined crpf as a direct entry officer on 15/05/2010 as assistant commandant. I am so much in trouble due to unavoidable family problem I tried my best to correct it but it is not possible till than I am in force hence I can not continue with this service any more so I want to resign from my service before 01/03/18. Hence you are humbly requested to please accept my resignation before 01/03/18. thanking you in-anticipation Dated- 27/11/17 Sd/- Neeraj Kumar Uttam IRLA NO 8404 ASSISTANT COMMANDANT 93 Bn. CRPF Lucknow (U.P)”

3. Mr. Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the aforesaid application was accepted by the respondent w.e.f. 12 March 2018. He has taken us through certain notings in that regard which, according to him, evince a tentative acceptance of the petitioner’s application as being meritorious.

4. We are not inclined to enter into that aspect as it is a well settled position that file notings do not confer any right on a citizen as they merely represent a tentative opinion taken on the file which is always open to change. It is only the final order which is communicated to W.P.(C) 3904/2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:22.04.2025 16:14:12 the citizen which can constitute the basis of a claim in law. A recent decision, which reiterates this position, is to be found in Yadaiah v State of Telangana2, from which the following paragraphs merit reproduction in this context: “61. Coming now to the issue of the date of assignment, we agree entirely with the respondent's stance that the actual assignment took place only at the time of issuance of temporary pattas and not at any point prior thereto. On perusal of the documents brought on record, which are merely collection of inter- departmental correspondence before the issuance of temporary pattas, we find that the assignment process was still underway. The appellant's reliance on unfounded as the same only communicated the sanction by the executive and nothing else. In fact, the letter dated 4-6-1960 brings out the fact that the area of the sanctioned land was to be reduced to 142 acres and 39 guntas and then only was to be assigned. In this regard, this Court has repeatedly held and recently reiterated again in Mahadeo v Sovan Devi3 that: the document dated 28-10-1953 It settled is well inter-departmental “15. communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. This Court examined the said question in a judgment reported as Omkar Sinha v Sahadat Khan4. Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh v State of Punjab5, to hold that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government, two things are necessary. First, the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up, the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file.”

62. Similarly, the decision of (Emphasis supplied) in Bachhittar this Court