Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Raj) 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Sumer Singh S/o Ram Kishore – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4930 of 2023
Decided on : 16-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Kiran for Mr. Vinod Choudhary
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy. SG a/w Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of an appointment may be justified if the candidate fails to join duty within the specified period, and if the reasons provided for extension are not adequately supported.

Headnote:
Appointment Cancellation - Extension of Joining Date - Office Memorandum No. 35016/2/93-Est(D) - Summary: The court dismissed a writ petition seeking relief for the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment. The petitioner failed to join duty within the specified period despite extensions granted by the respondent authorities. The court referred to Office Memorandum No. 35016/2/93-Est(D) which allows a maximum of six months for joining after the offer of appointment, and observed that the petitioner did not provide adequate reasons or medical documents for the requested extension. The court found no grounds to grant relief to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner qualified for the post of Sub-Inspector (General Duty) and was offered an appointment. Due to health issues and ailing mother, the petitioner requested extensions for joining, which were rejected by the respondent authorities. The appointment was subsequently cancelled, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to join duty within the specified period despite extensions granted by the respondent authorities. The court referred to relevant Office Memorandum and observed that the petitioner did not provide adequate reasons or medical documents for the requested extension.
Issues: The main issue was whether the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment was justified, considering the requested extensions and the petitioner's reasons for non-joining.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Office Memorandum No. 35016/2/93-Est(D) which allows a maximum of six months for joining after the offer of appointment. The petitioner's failure to provide sufficient reasons or medical documents for the requested extension influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner did not present a fit case for granting relief.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this rate petition me kindly be allowed with cost and;

i. By an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondents whereby, offer of appointment on the post of SI/GD dated 22.10.2022 (Anx-01) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii. By an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned letter dated 07.02.2023 (Anx-04) passed by the respondents whereby, the request to reconsider the cancellation of offer of appointment may kindly be set aside and quashed.

iii. By an appropriate order or direction the respondent me kindly be directed to reissuance of offer of appointment with all consequential benefits.

iv. Any other appropriate rate order or direction with this honorable court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that an advertisement was issued by the Staff Selection Commission for the post of Sub-Inspector (General Duty) (Male) by conducting examination for the same in the year 2020, in pursuance whereof the petitioner submitted his application. Thereafter, an admission card was issued to the petitioner for Preliminary Examination, for which the petitioner appeared and was later on declared successful, whereafter Main Examination was conducted followed by the Physical Fitness Test; in both the said examination/test, the petitioner stood qualified, and consequently, he was declared successful for the post in question and an offer of appointment was made to the petitioner by respondent-GC-I CRPF, Ajmer with a direction to report at Group Centre-I Ajmer on or before 21.11.2022 vide letter dated 22.10.2022.

2.1. However, due to certain health issues, the petitioner could not report on the specified date at Ajmer and sought extension for the same vide letter dated 19.11.2022, whereafter vide call letter dated 26.11.2022, the petitioner was called upon to join on 22.12.2022 and also vide letter dated 12.12.2022, the respondents rejected the extension request of the petitioner.

2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner again requested for extension vide registered post letter dated 20.12.2022 and also sent email on 22.12.2022, as the petitioner’s mother was facing major health issues, however the respondents on 29/30.12.2022 cancelled the offer of appointment of the petitioner, whereafter representation was submitted by the petitioner before the respondents on 18.01.2023, however, the same came to be rejected by letter dated 07.02.2023. Aggrieved of the said impugned decisions taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred the present petition claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner was done without following the due process, as per which, the joining can be extended upto six months on request of candidate(s), and thus the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner was highly illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had in a timely manner intimated the concerned respondent authorities with regard to the reasons for being unable to report on the assigned date, thus, the petitioner cannot be penalized with cancellation of offer of appointment. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s mother was severely ill and the petitioner being the only one to take care of her, it became difficult for him to join, and accordingly, the same was communicated to the respondent authorities within time.

3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent authorities have cancelled the offer of appointment of the petitioner in a vague, non-speaking and mechanical manner without duly adhering to the prescriptions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document