SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Deepanshu Dhiman - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondents
CWP No.4319 of 2025
Decided On : 27-03-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

An employee's resignation cannot be rejected based on staff shortages if no bond to serve was signed, affirming the right to career progression.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law - Resignation - The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, sought to resign from her position to join another institution, but her resignation was rejected on grounds of staff shortage - The court emphasized that an employee cannot be compelled to serve against their will, especially when no bond was signed to ensure service - The court quashed the rejection of resignation and directed acceptance. (Paras 1-14)

(B) Employment Rights - The right to resign - The court reiterated that individuals have the right to progress in their careers and cannot be bound to serve if they do not wish to do so. (Paras 9-12)

(C) Judicial Precedents - The court referred to previous judgments that established that staff shortages cannot justify the rejection of a resignation. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after being appointed as Assistant Professor at one institution, applied for a position at another institution and submitted her resignation, which was rejected due to staff shortages.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the petition, quashing the rejection of resignation and directing the immediate acceptance of the resignation.

Issues: The main issues were whether the resignation could be rejected based on staff shortages and the rights of the petitioner to resign.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that resignation cannot be rejected on the grounds of staff shortages and emphasized the right of individuals to progress in their careers.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Petitioner, who did her MD in Anesthesia from GMCH Chandigarh (Punjab University) as a direct candidate, came to be appointed as Assistant Professor through direct recruitment at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar Medical College Nahan, on the recommendation of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission in the month of July 2022. On 16.8.2022, petitioner joined against the aforesaid post in the college concerned. On 2.1.2024, applications came to be invited by PGIMER, Chandigarh, for two posts of Assistant Professor (Anesthesia) (SC). Petitioner being fully eligible applied against the post in question pursuant to provisional NOC granted in her favour by the respondent-State vide communication dated 10.4.2024 (Annexure P-1). Result of selection process was published on 5.3.2025, and petitioner was recommended to the post of Assistant Professor (Annexure P-2).

2. After receipt of aforesaid offer, petitioner intimated her willingness to accept the appointment vide communication dated 6.3.2025 and requested to grant time till 18.3.2025 for joining. On 7.3.2025, petitioner submitted her technical resignation to the appointing authority i.e. Secretary (Health) Government of Himachal Pradesh, (Annexure P-5) with the request to relieve her on or before 14.3.2025, however, fact remains that her request was rejected vide communication dated 17.3.2025 (Annexure P-6). On 19.3.2025, petitioner submitted unconditional resignation w.e.f. 19.3.2025, (Annexure P-7) with a request to intimate the dues payable by her to department so as to enable her to clear the same. Besides tendering unconditional resignation, petitioner also requested PGIMER, Chandigarh, to grant her extension of one month, which was accepted. Now since unconditional resignation of the petitioner is not being considered by the competent authority, petitioner is compelled to approach this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following reliefs:

“(i) That the impugned rejection vide Annexure P-6 dated 17.03.2025 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

(ii) That the respondent may be directed to accept the “unconditional resignation” submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P-7 dated 19.03.2025 forthwith, so as to enable her to join against the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesia in PGIMER, Chandigarh well before 06.04.2025.”

3. Having taken note of the aforesaid grouse of the petitioner, this Court passed detailed order on 25.3.2025, which reads as under:

“Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though petitioner has tendered unconditional resignation on 19.3.2025, but yet she is not being relieved on flimsy grounds.

2.Petitioner herein is working as Assistant Professor (Anesthesia) in Dr.YSPGMC, Nahan. On account of her having cleared examination at PGIMER, Chandigarh, petitioner received the appointment letter from PGIMER, Chandigarh, for the post of Assistant Professor (Anesthesia), as such, at the first instance, tendered technical resignation, which was not accepted as is evident from Annexure (Annexure P-6). Petitioner after receipt of aforesaid communication submitted her unconditional resignation (Annexure P-7), but same is not being accepted on the ground that there is paucity of doctors in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Since petitioner herein was to join as Assistant Professor at PGIMER, Chandigarh, on or before 18.3.2025, she applied for extension to PGIMER Chandigarh, which was granted vide communication dated 21.3.2025 and further extended upto 6.4.2025.

3.It is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record, which are duly supported by an affidavit that petitioner has not furnished any bond, thereby undertaking to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh, rather material available on record reveals that petitioner has done relevant course from other State.

4. While putting in appearance on behalf of the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top