JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting-aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-16) vide which the claim of the petitioner for reinstating him on the post of Revenue Accountant (RA) has been rejected by respondent No.3 wrongly and illegally while referring Rule 7.5 of Main Service Regulations, Volume I, Part I, whereas the claim/prayer of the petitioner is squarely covered under Rules 3.11(1) and 3.14 of Main Service Regulations, 1972, Volume I, Part I and Rule 3.12(1) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Revenue Accountant (RA) in view of Rules 3.11(1) and 3.14 of Main Service Regulations, 1972 Volume I, Part I and Rule 3.12(1) of Punjab Civil Service Rules.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as Revenue Accountant on probation vide appointment letter dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure P-2), and he joined the service on 01.09.2020 and, after successfully completing the period of probation, he stood confirmed vide order dated 13.10.2023 (Annexure P-6), thereby acquiring a substantive right and statutory lien on the post. He further submits that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the year 2021 (Annexure P-4), with due permission of the department and on the strength of a valid No Objection Certificate (Annexure P-5). Pursuant to which an appointment letter was issued though the recruitment process remained sub judice and was initially stayed by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2021 and thereafter, quashed vide judgment dated 08.08.2022, rendering the entire selection of Assistant Professor legally uncertain. Thereafter, upon restoration of the recruitment process by the Division Bench of this Court in intra-court appeal, the petitioner tendered a technical resignation on 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) followed by a formal resignation on 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-9), which was accepted on 04.03.2025 (Annexure P-10), and he accordingly joined the post of Assistant Professor on 06.03.2025. Subsequently, the entire recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.07.2025, rendering the petitioner involuntarily unemployed, whereupon he immediately sought re-joining to his substantive post of Revenue Accountant on 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-13) by invoking his statutory lien under the applicable service rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-16), rejecting the claim of the petitioner by mechanically relying upon Rule 7.5 of the Main Service Regulations (in short ‘MSR’), is ex facie arbitrary and legally unsustainable as it ignores the settled position that a confirmed employee who resigns on technical grounds to take up another public post retains lien until it is lawfully terminated. He further contends that despite submitting a detailed representation dated 21.10.2025 (Annexure P-17), invoking Rules 3.11(1) and 3.14 of the MSR read with Rule 3.12(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which safeguard an employee’s lien and permit reversion where the subsequent appointment fails without any fault of the employee, however, the respondents have failed to pass any order or communicate any decision thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Vikas Sandhu vs Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh and others, 2025 NCPHHC 1775, and submits that an employee who has participated in the selection process for a new post with the permission of the appointing authority is entitled to submit a technical resignation rather than a simple resignation to join the new post.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent