JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-13). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-join the petitioner to the post of Fireman with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Fireman on 06.03.2024, as discernible from Annexure P-1, and he joined his duties on 11.03.2024 with respondent No.2-Municipal Council. Subsequently, he was selected for the post of Clerk- cum-Data Entry Operator with the Education Department and received an appointment letter on 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-3). On 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner submitted an application seeking acceptance of his resignation and requesting that his post be kept on lien to enable him to join the Education Department. Respondent No.3 accepted his resignation on 28.03.2025 stating that the case for keeping the post on lien would be considered in the upcoming Municipal Council meeting, as discernible from Annexure P-5. The Municipal Council in its meeting held on 20.06.2025 unanimously passed Resolution No.195 approving the lien on the post for the petitioner, as discernible from Annexure P-7. Thereafter, the petitioner requested to rejoin respondent No.2-Municipal Council on 11.08.2025. The Executive Officer concerned informed him that the matter had been sent to the Government for approval, as discernible from Annexure P-9. Shockingly, respondent No.3 rejected the request for rejoining via the impugned letter dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-13) citing Rule 3.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules which states that there shall be no lien on a post for an employee on probation.

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order (Annexure P-13) is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of promissory estoppel as the respondents have taken a U-turn after the respondent No.2-Municipal Council unanimously passed a resolution approving the lien on the petitioner’s post. The denial of permission to rejoin service of the respondent-Municipal Council after six months of passing the resolution in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 3.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I (Part I), Chapter III. He submits that the respondents have wrongly interpreted Rule 3.12 (supra) and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The respondents have relied upon Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3.12 while ignoring Sub-rule (2) which is applicable to the case of the petitioner, who is a temporary employee. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.1168 of 2026 titled Shivani Jain vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and others, decided on 19.01.2026 to support his case.

2.2 He further refers to the communication (Annexure P-14) and submits that respondent No.3 has categorically admitted that the lien of the petitioner has been approved in terms of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as such, the sudden rejection of the respondent is dehors the Rules. Further, another identically circumstanced employee, who was appointed as a Fireman in the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, in terms of the same advertisement under which the petitioner was selected, resigned from the said post after obtaining lien and subsequently joined the Punjab Police. Thereafter, the said employee requested the competent authority to permit him to rejoin the post of Fireman in the Municipal Corporation and his request was accepted. As such, the denial of similar relief to the petitioner is arbitrary in nature.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the applicable rules do not provide for any lien to a temporary employee. The petitioner wa