The court emphasized the need for transparency and adherence to rules in recruitment processes, and upheld the petitioner's right to fair consideration for absorption.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar, J. - By Speaking Order dated 04.10.2019, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, NSM Division, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, informed the petitioner that his request for absorption in National Institute of Solar Energy (hereinafter, referred to as 'NISE') was not agreed to. In tandem, NISE issued Office Order dated 04.10.2019 informing the petitioner that, upon completion of the tenure of his deputation, he would stand relieved from NISE on 04.10.2019 (AN) and that he may report to his parent organization. These two orders are subjected to challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner also assails Corrigendum No. 2 dated 19.03.2019 issued by NISE, whereby its Advertisement dated 01.03.2019 was modified and the post of Deputy Director General (Solar Photovoltaic) was added. This was the post held by the petitioner in which he had sought absorption, in terms of his letter of appointment read with the National Institute of Solar Energy (Scientific, Technical and Administrative Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules of 2015'). He also challenges Corrigendum No. 3 dated 26.03.2019 relating to the same advertisement on the ground that the tailor-made qualification of 'Material Science/Nano Technology' had been prescribed as the requisite qualification, contrary to the Recruitment Rules of 2015, so as to appoint the 7 th respondent. A consequential direction was sought to NISE to absorb him as a Deputy Director General/Scientist 'F on permanent basis as per Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules of 2015.

3. This writ petition was filed on 09.10.2019. It came up for hearing on 10.10.2019 and was adjourned to 15.10.2019. On that day, this Court ordered notice of motion returnable on 01.11.2019 and directed status quo to be maintained qua the services of the petitioner till the next date of hearing. Perusal of the said order reflects that this Court proceeded on the understanding that the petitioner was still continuing in the service of NISE and that his services ought not to be disturbed pending the recruitment to be made to the post under the impugned advertisement.

4. The petitioner thereupon filed CM-16122-CWP-2019 in this writ petition seeking modification of the order dated 15.10.2019. This application was filed on 23.10.2019. Therein, the petitioner stated that when he approached NISE with the status quo order dated 15.10.2019, he was informed that as he had already been relieved from the post, vide the impugned Office Order dated 04.10.2019, he would not be allowed to rejoin the post. The petitioner claimed that he had been relieved by a cryptic non-speaking order, without giving him an opportunity of hearing, and that he had not even been granted time to join his parent organization, viz., Central Electronics Limited. He asserted that the formalities of relieving him from the post had not been completed till date and that he had been shunted out after rendering more than two years of dedicated service. He accordingly sought modification of the interim order dated 15.10.2019 to the effect that NISE should maintain status quo ante, as existing prior to the passing of the Office Order dated 04.10.2019, qua his services. When this application came up for hearing before this Court on 24.10.2019, Mr. Arun Gosain, Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India, accepted notice on its behalf. This Court opined that, keeping in view the contents of the application and in order to resolve the controversy, it would be necessary to peruse the service record of the petitioner qua his being relieved from the post of Deputy Director General in NISE. The case was accordingly adjourned to 01.11.2019.On 01.11.2019, the learned Judge noted that a status quo order had been passed qua the services of the petitioner, as the relinquishment of charge had not taken place on that day, but a controversy had arisen with regard to the petitioner's continuatio