Dausa (Raj.) v. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Secretary

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Deputy Director (Jaipur), Department Of Secondary

4. Education Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.) The Chief Executive Officer, Dausa (Raj.) The District Education Officer, Department Of Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Dausa (Raj.)

5. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, (Chief Of Forest Force), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

7. The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Deputy Forest Conservator, Tiger Project Sariska. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Udit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC Ms. Namita Parihar, DGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 27/05/2025 Although, the matter comes up on an application (1/2025) filed by the petitioner seeking further and necessary directions but, with the consent of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition has been heard finally on its merit at this stage. [2025:RJ-JP:22286] (2 of 6) [CW-1701/2025] This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to join either as Lecturer (Chemistry Science) in the Education Department or as Forest Range Officer Grade-I in the Forest Department. The relevant facts in brief are that vide order dated

08.07.2015, the petitioner was appointed on probation as Lecturer (Chemistry Science) in the Education Department. Vide order dated 19.05.2020, he was confirmed in service w.e.f. 21.07.2017 on completion of two years’ probation period. Pursuant to advertisement dated 04.04.2018, the petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Forest Range Officer Grade-I after obtaining prior permission from his employer, i.e., the Education Department. Upon his selection, the petitioner was appointed as Forest Range Officer Grade-I vide order dated 07.10.2022. He joined on the new post on 21.10.2022 after being relieved by the Education Department vide order dated 18.10.2022. On his request vide application dated 01.10.2024, he was relieved by the Forest Department vide letter dated 07.10.2024 to rejoin the Education Department. However, the Education Department did not permit him to rejoin as the Lecturer (Chemistry Science) for the reason that his lien with it has already come to an end and his request to the Forest Department to permit him to rejoin as the Forest Range Officer Grade-I was also declined vide order dated

18.11.2024 on the premise that he did not have lien in the Forest Department. In the aforesaid factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed. Reiterating the averments made in the memo of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of [2025:RJ-JP:22286] (3 of 6) [CW-1701/2025] this Court towards the definition of “substantive appointment” under Rule 2(l) of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 (for brevity “the Rules of 2015”), would submit that since, his appointment in the Forest Department was in the nature of substantive appointment, it created a lien in that department rendering the order impugned dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Forest Department bad in law. Learned counsel submits that since, the petitioner has lien in the Forest Department, he is entitled to rejoin as Forest Range Officer Grade-I. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment dated 15.04.2013 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gajendra Gautam versus State of Rajasthan: SB Civil Writ Petition No.5712/2013. Per contra, learned counsel for the Forest Department, also relying upon the definition of the “substantive appointment” as given under Rule 2(l) of the Rules of 2015, would submit that unless an employee is confirmed in service, he does not acquire lien in absence whereof, the petitioner has no right to rejoin the Forest Department as he was never confirmed as the Forest Range Officer Grade-I. Learned counsel for the Education Department submitted that this Court may pass any appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. Heard. Considered. The facts are in very narrow compass and are not in dispute. The petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Forest Range Officer Grade-I after due permission from the erstwhile employer, i.e., the Education Department, was appointed as such after due [2025:RJ-JP:22286] (4 of 6) [CW-1701/2025] selection and was relieved by the Forest Department to rejoin the Education Department on his request but, he was not permitted to rejoin as Lecturer (Chemistry Science) as his lien with the Education Department has already come to an end. He has also been denied rejoining in the Forest Department on the premise that he did not have lien with it. “Lien” is not defined under the Rules of 2015. However, learned counsels for the respective parties admit that the lien, as defined under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short “the Rules of 1951”), applies to the Forest Department as well. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1951 defines the lien as under:- “15. Lien—Unless in any case it be otherwise provided in these rules, a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post.” In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that substantive appointment to any permanent post confers the lien on the Government Servant to that post and with it, the previous lien acquired on any other post comes to an end. It is also revealed that confirmation on the post is not the condition precedent for acquiring the “lien”. Substantive appointment is defined under Rule 2(l) of the Rules of 2015 as under:- “2(l) “Substantive Appointment” means an appointment made under the provisions of these rules to a substantive vacancy after due selection by any of the methods of recruitment prescribed under these rules and [2025:RJ-JP:22286] (5 of 6) [CW-1701/2025] includes an appointment on probation or as probationer followed by confirmation on the completion of the probationary period;” (emphasis mine) From the aforesaid definition, it is apparent that it is in two parts. The first part provides that an appointment made under the provisions of these rules to a substantive vacancy after due selection by any of the methods of recruitment prescribed under these rules is substantive appointment. The second part provides that it also includes appointment on probation or as probationer followed by confirmation on the completion of the probationary period. Since, the words used are ‘and includes’, it has to be interpreted that the first part is complete in itself and it also includes the persons falling in the second part. It is not disputed even by the learned counsel for the Forest Department that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Range Officer Grade-I to a substantive vacancy after due selection by the recruitment process prescribed under the Rules of 2015 and in view thereof, this Court has no hesitation in recording a finding that the appointment of the petitioner with the Forest Department was in the nature of “substantive appointment”. Since, the appointment of the petitioner in the Forest Department was substantive in nature, the Rule 15 of the Rules of 1951 comes into play which confers lien on him in the Forest Department without confirmation on the post with termination of his lien with the Education Department. In almost similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Gajendra Gautam (supra), after examining the scheme of the Rules of 1951, held that on [2025:RJ-JP:22286] (6 of 6) [CW-1701/2025] subsequent appointment to a substantive and permanent post, the employee loses his lien on the previous post. In view of the aforesaid discussion, action of the Forest Department in denying permission to the petitioner to rejoin the duty on account of lack of lien is found to be bad in law. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 18.11.2024 is quashed and set aside. The respondent- Forest Department is directed to permit the petitioner to rejoin as the Forest Range Officer Grade-I within a period of a week from today. The period for which the petitioner was not on duty shall be treated to be regularized for grant of all service benefits barring actual monetary benefits by grant of admissible leave and if required, by extra ordinary leave. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Manish/19 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J