Rajasthan High Court
Honble BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.
Shesh Mal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2959 of 1993
Decided On : November 19, 1997
(2). That the petitioner received a communication Annex. P/3 from the office of the Additional D.I.G.P. Group Centre-I, CRPF, Ajmer whereby, he was required to bring with him certain certificates including the No Objection Certificate from the present employer, if employed. The case of the petitioner is that vide Annex. P/4 he applied for the NOC being granted to him. Vide Annex. P/5 result of the selection was declared and the petitioner was declared as selected and figured in the S.C. Quota at serial No. 19 in the list issued by the Director General of CRPF.
(3). The petitioner for getting selected had to appear in the examination and for that he took leave from the 3rd Battalion for appearing in the examination and during the period of leave he appeared in the examination. Subsequent to his selection he tendered his resignation and in his resignation he sought to get relieved within 24 hours. But, instead of relieving the petitioner, his services were terminated vide Annex. P/6 in terms of sub rule 1 of Rule 5.
(4). The petitioner has challenged his termination on the ground that the order is though an order simplicitor, but it is infact actuated by malafides because when the petitioner sought his discharge from service to join at his new selected post i.e. of Sub Inspector (G.D.) the respondents felt agitated that the petitioner has qualifi- ed for the higher post and they terminated the service of the petitioner.
(5). Further the grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annex. P/8 his selection to the post of Sub Inspector (G.D.) in CRPF has also been cancelled as he has not obtained no objection certificate from the 3rd Battalion, CRPF before submitting his application for getting selected as Sub Inspector (G.D.) and has violated the pro- visions of Recruitment Rules. It has further been mentioned in the order Annex. P/8 that the competent authority has not permitted the petitioner to join the post of Sub Inspector (G.D.) CRPF, therefore, his selection for Sub Inspector (G.D.) was cancelled.
(6). The respondents have put in their appearance and have contested the claim of the petitioner. They have stated that the petitioner has not routed his appli- cation through any office under which he was working. He has done so because he has not completed minimum required service of 3 years for recruitment as per advertisement. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner has applied for no objection certificate on 22.7.92, whereas, the last date of submitting the form was 15.6.92 and, therefore, his application for grant of NOC was not consi- dered. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has admitted that he has applied directly, therefore, the required conditions as advertised were not satisfied as he was required to route his application through proper channel or obtain No Objection Certificate from his employer. No only that the petitioner has not routed his application through proper channel, but he also kept his employer i.e. the res- pondents under dark about his effort to obtain employment in question as Sub Inspector (G.D.). The respondents have produced on record An
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.