O & M) Harnoorpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others CWP
Case Details
106+221 CWP-10299-2023 (O&M) and CWP-12240-2023(O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.01.2025 CWP-10299-2023 (O & M) Harnoorpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and others CWP-12240-2023 (O & M) vs. Kritika State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Kumar Vishav Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners in both the petitions. Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together and for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP-10299-2023. 2. Challenge made in the present petition is to the order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-33), whereby the request for granting technical resignation to the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The petitioner, applied for appointment as Inspector Audit in the Cooperative Department pursuant to advertisement dated 29.11.2016, wherein upon her selection, joined on 12.09.2018, as by such time, she was unsuccessful in her quest for the position of Section Officer in the Finance Department (Treasuries and Accounts) having applied per advertisement dated 30.07.2016, she being placed at the 27th rank in the SC category list, as per the result declared on 18.04.2018, while the 11 posts were filled up. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.29 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 106+221 CWP-10299-2023 (O&M) and CWP-12240-2023(O&M) - 2 - 4. She, learning of the potential vacancies in the Finance Department relating to the 2018 recruitment cycle, promptly notified the respondent-Cooperative Department on 30.04.2021 of it. 5. The Finance Department having obtained clarification from the Punjab Public Service Commission sought vide a letter dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-7) regarding candidates mentioned in the list, wherein name of the petitioner appeared at Sr. No. 10, she was officially informed of her appointment on 10.12.2021 (Annexure P-8), which was received by her on 10.02.2022 (Annexure P-11). 6. Consequent thereto, on 06.04.2022, she submitted her technical resignation (Annexure P-15), enclosing a challan depositing one month’s salary and training expenses of Rs. 20,458/-. Pending the approval of her resignation, she sought an extension on 11.04.2022 (Annexure P-16) from the Finance Department. However, on rejection of the same vide order dated 31.05.2022, she joined the new post on 09.06.2022 (Annexure P-36). 7. The petitioner not having figured in the final selection list for the post of Section Officer in the Finance Department had no reason or occasion to notify the Cooperative Department of her application submitted for the same. On congruent facts as of the present case, Writ Petition No.18957 of 2021 titled as Ravi Shankar Kumar vs. The Union of India , while recording the submissions of the respondent counsel, relying on Deepak Kumar vs. office of the District and Sessions PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.29 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 106+221 CWP-10299-2023 (O&M) and CWP-12240-2023(O&M) - 3 - Judge (HQs) & Ors. WP(C) No.1249/2016, decided on 17.11.2016, based on the principle of Office Memorandum, went ahead to allow the petition vide judgment dated 30.04.2024, in essence distinguishing the same by observing that “the petitioner was an unemployed youth at the time when he has made the applications to both respondent No.6 as well as respondent No.8. He has participated in the selection process of both the organisations and it is also not in dispute that he has not been informed to be successful in his attempts in the test written by him in respect of LDC in respondent No.8 organisation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has faulted in not reporting that he has applied for the post of LDC in Army Ordinance Depot when he was joining the CISF. It is also not in dispute that it is after the lapse of nearly 6 years that the provisional appointment letter has been issued by respondent No.8 in favour of the petitioner. It is at this point of time that the petitioner had informed respondent No.6 about his provisional selection. No doubt, the Office Memorandum dt.17.08.2016 gives or provides the guidelines/instructions for 'technical resignation' and it is stated therein that the application would have to be made through proper channel for a post in the same or some other Department and if the same is not made and if a person is selected and the resignation is accepted as technical resignation, the candidate would be eligible for the benefit of past service. Resignation in other cases including where the competent authority has not allowed the Government Servant to forward the application through proper channel, will not be treated as technical resignation and the benefit of past service PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.29 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 106+221 CWP-10299-2023 (O&M) and CWP-12240-2023(O&M) - 4 - will not be admissible to such a candidate. Further, it is also provided that the benefit is also admissible to Government Servants who have applied before joining the Government service and on that account the application was not routed through proper channel. The conditions prescribed for application of the said clause is that the Government Servant should intimate the details of such application immediately on his joining. The circumstances mentioned in the said OM would be applicable had the petitioner known about his selection and has chosen to opt for respondent No.6 organisation and not respondent No.8 organisation and reserved his right to join respondent No.8 organisation subsequently in future. The petitioner had applied for the post in respondent No.8 organisation much prior to his joining in respondent No.6 organisation, there is no question of his intimation about his unsuccessful attempts in the Army. ” 8. The impulsive application of Office Memorandums, devoid of contextual consideration, is deemed untenable in the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as the selection of the petitioner pursuant to the application filed prior in time, the select list whereof as it stood then, the petitioner could not find a place, however, his appointment materialized after a delay of nearly four years of acceptance of alternative appointment. The insistence on rigid procedures in such a scenario is deemed to be misplaced, the existing guidelines not contemplating such an eventuality. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.29 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 106+221 CWP-10299-2023 (O&M) and CWP-12240-2023(O&M) - 5 - 9. Upon a meticulous appraisal of the legal landscape and the interplay of precedents, this Court allows the petition emphatically holding that procedural restrictions must not eclipse substantive justice, particularly when an individual is ensnared in an administrative quagmire not of their own making. 10. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. 17.01.2025 parveen kumar (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No : Yes / No Whether reportable PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.29 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.