High Court

Petitioner :- Ramu Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Trivedi,Parimal Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kapish Srivastava Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in the recruitment process initiated by the U.P. Public Service Commissioner for recruitment to the post of Up-Sambhagiya Krishi Prasar Adhikari (Sub Divisional, Agriculture Extension Officer). The petitioner was successful in the said examination and was appointment letter was issued on 15.11.2021, directing the petitioner to join on the said post within thirty days.

3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, when appointment letter was issued, petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Manager in the Union Bank of India and was posted at Sidhauli Branch. The petitioner while he was working in Union Bank Of India, certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him with regard to alleged misconduct conducted by him between 08.08.2015 to 07.07.2018 and proceedings ended by punishment order dated 09.01.2023 by awarding minor penalty of reduction in the basic pay by one stage in the time scale for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. When the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner appointing him to the post of Sub Divisional, Agriculture Extension Officer, Bulandshahar, he tendered his resignation which was duly accepted on 13.04.2023. Despite submission of his resignation letter, the petitioner was not permitted to join and accordingly, he had filed the instant writ petition praying for following reliefs :- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite Party No. 2 to forthwith send reply of Letter No. 1369/12-1-23-608/17 dated 18th September, 2023 (Annexure No. 2) for facilitating Petitioner's joining as Sub Divisional Agricultural Extension Officer, Bulandshahar (Up-Sambhagiya Krishi Prasad Adhikari, Bulandshahar) in terms of Appointment Order dated 15.11.2021 bearing nu,ber 2495/12-1-21-608/17 (Annexure No. 1). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to ensure joining of the Petitioner on the post of Sub Divisional Agricultural Extension Officer, Bulandshahar. (c) Issue of any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. (d) Allow this writ petition with cost."

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of present writ petition, an order dated 06.12.2024 was served cancelling the appointment of petitioner. In the order dated 06.12.2024, it was stated that initially the petitioner in response to the letter of appointment has sought two month's time for joining by his letter dated 04.12.2021, where it was stated that on account of the fact that the petitioner is suffering from certain injury and hence needed time so that he can recoope and considering such request, the respondents by means of letter dated 27.12.2021, one month time was granted to the petitioner for joining.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner again by means of letter dated 03.03.2022 had informed that he has submitted his resignation letter to his erstwhile employer i.e. Union Bank of India, which has not yet been accepted and consequently had prayed for one month's extra time. It is submitted that despite submission of resignation letter to the respondent dated 13.04.2023, when his resignation was not accepted, the petitioner approached this Court by means of present writ petition.

6. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that on coming to know about filing of present writ petition, the respondents have passed the impugned order cancelling his appointment and hence amendment application was filed in the present writ petition amending the prayer clause to the following effect : "(aa) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024 issued by Opposite Party No. 3 contained in Annexure No. 15 to the Writ Petition, after summoning the original with all consequential benefits."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have relied upon the Government Order dated 15.11.1999, specially Clause 2(3) where it is stated that one month time will be granted for taking charge on any post and considering the fact that one month period has lapsed and the petitioner has not joined, his appointment letter has been cancelled.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as when the petitioner had prayed for two month's time on 14.11.2021, the respondents themselves have communicated to the petitioner that they have considered his request and granted him one month time, while on the second occasion when the petitioner had sought extension of time on 03.03.2022, the respondents did not respond to the said request made by the petitioner and nor had they passed any order for and it is only after one and half years that they have extraneously cancelled his appointment letter.

9. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the respondents wished to place reliance upon the Government Order dated 15.11.1999, then they should follow the conditions stated therein in letter and spirit and non consideration of the points as provided in the Government Order dated 15.11.1999 and when the petitioner had sought time on 03.03.2022, his request was neither rejected nor allowed. Subsequently, he made an application for being permitted to join and submitted his resignation letter dated 13.04.2023, where it was open for the respondents to either accept his joining letter or to reject the same within reasonable period of time, but the same having not been done, it cannot be now, after such a long lapse of time, his candidature cannot be cancelled relying upon the Government Order dated 15.11.1999.

10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that validity of Government Order dated 15.11.1999 was subject matter of writ petition being Writ Petition Nos. 4864 and 36512 of 2001, before the coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the said Government Order was quashed, accordingly the respondents could not place reliance upon the Government Order dated 15.11.1999 to reject the extension of time request of the petitioner and also for cancelling his appointment.

11. It was further submitted that once the petitioner has been issued letter of appointment, certain rights vest with the petitioner, at least to join his services. He submits that considering the fact that petitioner was previously employed with the Union Bank of India, and it was mandatory for him to resign from the said service and it is only after his resignation is accepted that he can join on another post. The petitioner disclosed all these facts of the respondents and immediately on receiving his letter of resignation, he had made a request for permission to join, but no orders were passed by the respondents and consequently, he filed instant writ petition.

12. It is stated that even in the impugned order no cogent reason for rejection of petitioner's application for extension of time dated 03.03.2022 have been stated. It is stated that even perusal of Clause 2(3) and 2(5) of the Government Order dated 15.11.1999, would indicate that it is only after grant of extension of time, if a candidate does not join, can his candidature be cancelled. He submits that in the present case, it is not the case where petitioner has declined to joint on the said post and he has already shown his willingness to join in pursuance to the appointment letter inasmuch as he had given letter dated 14.12.2021 and 03.03.2022 seeking extension of time for the purpose.

13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by submitting aforesaid letters and the respondents referring to these letters in the impugned orders, clearly demonstrates that it is not the case where the petitioner on his part does not want to join, but on the contrary he was already and willing to joint on the aforesaid post and consequently, the respondents could not have cancelled his appointment letter relying upon the Government Order dated 15.11.1999. Accordingly, it is submitted that merely because there was certain delay in acceptance of petitioner's resignation letter, it cannot be a ground for cancellation of the appointment.

14. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the Government Order dated 15.11.1999, clearly provides that time limit within which a person can joint on the post, it is stated that the discretion is vested in the competent authority to grant extension of one month time on the request made by the candidate to permit him to join after one month, and in case he does not join after the extended period, his candidature will be cancelled.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

16. The facts of the case are not in dispute inasmuch as, the petitioner was appointed by the U.P. Public Service Commissioner on the post of Sub Divisional Agriculture Extension Officer and appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 15.11.2021. On receipt of appointment letter, the petitioner who at the relevant point of time was working on the post of Assistant Manager in the Union Bank of India, has stated that he has met with an accident and require two months time to recover and to enable him to join on the post. To the aforesaid letter, the respondents had considered and granted one month time to join. By means of letter dated 03.03.2021, the petitioner again prayed for one month more time so that he can submit his letter of resignation. The petitioner finally received letter of resignation on 13.04.2023 and same was submitted before the competent authority.

17. The petitioner approached this Court with grievance that despite submission of letter of resignation to the respondents, they were not permitting him to join on the said post. During pendency of the writ petition, impugned order dated 06.12.2024 was passed, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.

18. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the respondents had any power to extend the time period within which a candidate has to join on the appointed post or merely after expiry of thirty days period would be sufficient to cancel his candidature.

19. In the present case, the petitioner had moved application on 14.12.2021 seeking two months time and same was accepted by the respondents by their letter dated 27.12.2021, who after duly considering the request of the petitioner gave him additional one month time to join on the said post. In the said letter it was not stated that petitioner had to join by any particular date or that he, in case he does not join, his appointment would be cancelled.

20. It is stated by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, petitioner had submitted his resignation before his erstwhile employer, which is a necessary condition for joining any subsequent service. As it was taking some time for acceptance letter to his resignation, the petitioner again requested the respondents to grant him one month more time vide letter dated 03.03.2021. The respondents did not respond to the request of the petitioner dated 03.03.2021 and kept the matter pending and even after submission of resignation letter dated 13.04.2023, they did not pass any order to permit the petitioner to join, consequently, present writ petition was filed.

21. This Court finds that in case the respondents were of the view that thirty days period was a mandatory condition within which time a Government servant has to join, then such a condition should be either stated in particular rules or Government Order or it was open for the respondents to have stated it in their appointment letter or in the subsequent letter dated 27.12.2021, by which letter request of petitioner for extension of time was accepted by the respondents. From the conduct of respondents themselves it is evident that thirty days period was never considered by them to be mandatory period within which a successful candidate has to join his services. Neither from the appointment letter nor from the communications done between the petitioner and respondents, this Court finds that in case cogent reason was indicated by a candidate seeking further time to join the service, then it was open for the respondents to have duly considered and accept such a request for extension of time while passing the order dated 27.12.2021. Needless to say that a successful candidate has to join the service by the date specified in the appointment letter or within a reasonable period of time thereafter.

22. It was further open for the respondents to have given notice to the petitioner subsequent to 27.12.2021, closing his opportunity to join and in case, the petitioner did not join within the period prescribed, and the respondents would have been within their competence to cancel his appointment in such a case.

23. It is noticed that after sufficient long length of time, only when petitioner had resorted to legal remedies, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 06.12.2024, cancelling petitioner's appointment.

24. This Court finds that exercise of power by the respondents is neither supported by the Rules nor any Government Order, but infact they rushed to take decision after coming to know about filing of present writ petition. Apart from the above, we find that the grounds taken by the petitioner for extension of time was not due to any malafide intention or for any other extraneous reasons, inasmuch as the petitioner was always ready and willing to join at the appointed post.

25. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that grounds taken by the respondents while cancelling appointment are clearly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Government Order dated 15.11.1999, which also has been set aside by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

26. In view of above, impugned order dated 06.12.2024, being illegal and arbitrary is hereby set aside.

27. It is further provided that in case petitioner approaches the competent authority for submission of his joining letter, the competent authority shall have two weeks thereafter for accepting his joining, in accordance with law.

28. The writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)

Petitioner :- Ramu Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Trivedi,Parimal Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kapish Srivastava Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in the recruitment process initiated by the U.P. Public Service Commissioner for recruitment to the post of Up-Sambhagiya Krishi Prasar Adhikari (Sub Divisional, Agriculture Extension Officer). The petitioner was successful in the said examination and was appointment letter was issued on 15.11.2021, directing the petitioner to join on the said post within thirty days.

3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, when appointment letter was issued, petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Manager in the Union Bank of India and was posted at Sidhauli Branch. The petitioner while he was working in Union Bank Of India, certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him with regard to alleged misconduct conducted by him between 08.08.2015 to 07.07.2018 and proceedings ended by punishment order dated 09.01.2023 by awarding minor penalty of reduction in the basic pay by one stage in the time scale for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. When the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner appointing him to the post of Sub Divisional, Agriculture Extension Officer, Bulandshahar, he tendered his resignation which was duly accepted on 13.04.2023. Despite submission of his resignation letter, the petitioner was not permitted to join and accordingly, he had filed the instant writ petition praying for following reliefs :- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite Party No. 2 to forthwith send reply of Letter No. 1369/12-1-23-608/17 dated 18th September, 2023 (Annexure No. 2) for facilitating Petitioner's joining as Sub Divisional Agricultural Extension Officer, Bulandshahar (Up-Sambhagiya Krishi Prasad Adhikari, Bulandshahar) in terms of Appointment Order dated 15.11.2021 bearing nu,ber 2495/12-1-21-608/17 (Annexure No. 1). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to ensure joining of the Petitioner on the post of Sub Divisional Agricultural Extension Officer, Bulandshahar. (c) Issue of any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. (d) Allow this writ petition with cost."

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of present writ petition, an order dated 06.12.2024 was served cancelling the appointment of petitioner. In the order dated 06.12.2024, it was stated that initially the petitioner in response to the letter of appointment has sought two month's time for joining by his letter dated 04.12.2021, where it was stated that on account of the fact that the petitioner is suffering from certain injury and hence needed time so that he can recoope and considering such request, the respondents by means of letter dated 27.12.2021, one month time was granted to the petitioner for joining.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner again by means of letter dated 03.03.2022 had informed that he has submitted his resignation letter to his erstwhile employer i.e. Union Bank of India, which has not yet been accepted and consequently had prayed for one month's extra time. It is submitted that despite submission of resignation letter to the respondent dated 13.04.2023, when his resignation was not accepted, the petitioner approached this Court by means of present writ petition.

6. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that on coming to know about filing of present writ petition, the respondents have passed the impugned order cancelling his appointment and hence amendment application was filed in the present writ petition amending the prayer clause to the following effect : "(aa) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024 issued by Opposite Party No. 3 contained in Annexure No. 15 to the Writ Petition, after summoning the original with all consequential benefits."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have relied upon the Government Order dated 15.11.1999, specially Clause 2(3) where it is stated that one month time will be granted for taking charge on any post and considering the fact that one month period has lapsed and the petitioner has not joined, his appointment letter has been cancelled.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as when the petitioner had prayed for two month's time on 14.11.2021, the respondents themselves have communicated to the petitioner that they have considered his request and granted him one month time, while on the second occasion when the petitioner had sought extension of time on 03.03.2022, the respondents did not respond to the said request made by the petitioner and nor had they passed any order for and it is only after one and half years that they have extraneously cancelled his appointment letter.

9. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the respondents wished to place reliance upon the Government Order dated 15.11.1999, then they should follow the conditions stated therein in letter and spirit and non consideration of the points as provided in the Government Order dated 15.11.1999 and when the petitioner had sought time on 03.03.2022, his request was neither rejected nor allowed. Subsequently, he made an application for being permitted to join and submitted his resignation letter dated 13.04.2023, where it was open for the respondents to either accept his joining letter or to reject the same within reasonable period of time, but the same having not been done, it cannot be now, after such a long lapse of time, his candidature cannot be cancelled relying upon the Government Order dated 15.11.1999.

10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that validity of Government Order dated 15.11.1999 was subject matter of writ petition being Writ Petition Nos. 4864 and 36512 of 2001, before the coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the said Government Order was quashed, accordingly the respondents could not place reliance upon the Government Order dated 15.11.1999 to reject the extension of time request of the petitioner and also for cancelling his appointment.

11. It was further submitted that once the petitioner has been issued letter of appointment, certain rights vest with the petitioner, at least to join his services. He submits that considering the fact that petitioner was previously employed with the Union Bank of India, and it was mandatory for him to resign from the said service and it is only after his resignation is accepted that he can join on another post. The petitioner disclosed all these facts of the respondents and immediately on receiving his letter of resignation, he had made a request for permission to join, but no orders were passed by the respondents and consequently, he filed instant writ petition.

12. It is stated that even in the impugned order no cogent reason for rejection of petitioner's application for extension of time dated 03.03.2022 have been stated. It is stated that even perusal of Clause 2(3) and 2(5) of the Government Order dated 15.11.1999, would indicate that it is only after grant of extension of time, if a candidate does not join, can his candidature be cancelled. He submits that in the present case, it is not the case where petitioner has declined to joint on the said post and he has already shown his willingness to join in pursuance to the appointment letter inasmuch as he had given letter dated 14.12.2021 and 03.03.2022 seeking extension of time for the purpose.

13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by submitting aforesaid letters and the respondents referring to these letters in the impugned orders, clearly demonstrates that it is not the case where the petitioner on his part does not want to join, but on the contrary he was already and willing to joint on the aforesaid post and consequently, the respondents could not have cancelled his appointment letter relying upon the Government Order dated 15.11.1999. Accordingly, it is submitted that merely because there was certain delay in acceptance of petitioner's resignation letter, it cannot be a ground for cancellation of the appointment.

14. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the Government Order dated 15.11.1999, clearly provides that time limit within which a person can joint on the post, it is stated that the discretion is vested in the competent authority to grant extension of one month time on the request made by the candidate to permit him to join after one month, and in case he does not join after the extended period, his candidature will be cancelled.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

16. The facts of the case are not in dispute inasmuch as, the petitioner was appointed by the U.P. Public Service Commissioner on the post of Sub Divisional Agriculture Extension Officer and appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 15.11.2021. On receipt of appointment letter, the petitioner who at the relevant point of time was working on the post of Assistant Manager in the Union Bank of India, has stated that he has met with an accident and require two months time to recover and to enable him to join on the post. To the aforesaid letter, the respondents had considered and granted one month time to join. By means of letter dated 03.03.2021, the petitioner again prayed for one month more time so that he can submit his letter of resignation. The petitioner finally received letter of resignation on 13.04.2023 and same was submitted before the competent authority.

17. The petitioner approached this Court with grievance that despite submission of letter of resignation to the respondents, they were not permitting him to join on the said post. During pendency of the writ petition, impugned order dated 06.12.2024 was passed, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.

18. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the respondents had any power to extend the time period within which a candidate has to join on the appointed post or merely after expiry of thirty days period would be sufficient to cancel his candidature.

19. In the present case, the petitioner had moved application on 14.12.2021 seeking two months time and same was accepted by the respondents by their letter dated 27.12.2021, who after duly considering the request of the petitioner gave him additional one month time to join on the said post. In the said letter it was not stated that petitioner had to join by any particular date or that he, in case he does not join, his appointment would be cancelled.

20. It is stated by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, petitioner had submitted his resignation before his erstwhile employer, which is a necessary condition for joining any subsequent service. As it was taking some time for acceptance letter to his resignation, the petitioner again requested the respondents to grant him one month more time vide letter dated 03.03.2021. The respondents did not respond to the request of the petitioner dated 03.03.2021 and kept the matter pending and even after submission of resignation letter dated 13.04.2023, they did not pass any order to permit the petitioner to join, consequently, present writ petition was filed.

21. This Court finds that in case the respondents were of the view that thirty days period was a mandatory condition within which time a Government servant has to join, then such a condition should be either stated in particular rules or Government Order or it was open for the respondents to have stated it in their appointment letter or in the subsequent letter dated 27.12.2021, by which letter request of petitioner for extension of time was accepted by the respondents. From the conduct of respondents themselves it is evident that thirty days period was never considered by them to be mandatory period within which a successful candidate has to join his services. Neither from the appointment letter nor from the communications done between the petitioner and respondents, this Court finds that in case cogent reason was indicated by a candidate seeking further time to join the service, then it was open for the respondents to have duly considered and accept such a request for extension of time while passing the order dated 27.12.2021. Needless to say that a successful candidate has to join the service by the date specified in the appointment letter or within a reasonable period of time thereafter.

22. It was further open for the respondents to have given notice to the petitioner subsequent to 27.12.2021, closing his opportunity to join and in case, the petitioner did not join within the period prescribed, and the respondents would have been within their competence to cancel his appointment in such a case.

23. It is noticed that after sufficient long length of time, only when petitioner had resorted to legal remedies, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 06.12.2024, cancelling petitioner's appointment.

24. This Court finds that exercise of power by the respondents is neither supported by the Rules nor any Government Order, but infact they rushed to take decision after coming to know about filing of present writ petition. Apart from the above, we find that the grounds taken by the petitioner for extension of time was not due to any malafide intention or for any other extraneous reasons, inasmuch as the petitioner was always ready and willing to join at the appointed post.

25. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that grounds taken by the respondents while cancelling appointment are clearly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Government Order dated 15.11.1999, which also has been set aside by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

26. In view of above, impugned order dated 06.12.2024, being illegal and arbitrary is hereby set aside.

27. It is further provided that in case petitioner approaches the competent authority for submission of his joining letter, the competent authority shall have two weeks thereafter for accepting his joining, in accordance with law.

28. The writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)