Whether approved for reporting? 1

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(i). that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be kindly pleased quash office order dated 31.3.2017 (Annexure A-8) and 06.04.2017 (Annexure A-9).

(ii). That the Respondents may be directed to consider the present Applicant for appointment to the post of Forest Guard.

The undisputed facts, which emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner who had applied for the post of Forest Guard was put in the waiting list at Serial No.1. Respondent No.5 was selected for the post of Forest Guard on contract basis and offuered appointment vide office order dated 17.12.2016 (Annexure A-2). In sequel to the said appointment order, he joined his duties as Forest Guard on 22.12.2016. However, later on, he resigned from the post of Forest Guard, sinhce he was selected in Central Reserve Police Force ong08.03.2017 (Annexure A-3). Consequent upon the resignation iof respondent No.5, the petitioner, who was in the waiting list, moved an application on 20.03.2017 (Annexure A-4) to offer him appointment in his place. Vide communication dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure A-5) written by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3, a request was made to fill-up two posts, which had fallen vacant on account of leaving job by respondent No.5 and one Shri Jitender. The petitioner has placed on record application submitted by respondent No.5 dated 24.03.2017 (Annexure A-6), for withdrawal of his resignation. On the basis of application submitted by respondent No.5, respondent No.3 had forwarded the same to respondent No.4, who had written back to respondent No.3, vide communication dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure A-7), stating therein that the resignation of res pondent No.5 has been accepted and thereafter theo case for appointing next candidate from the waiting list prepared for recruitment of Forest Guard during 12/2016 was submitted to the office vide office memo dated 22.03.2017 and since as per terms and conditions laid down in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and ServicCe Rules for contractual appointees, there is no instructions/provision for contractual appointee, who has resigned to be given opportunity to rejoin and requested to guide his office as to whether the contract employee who has resigned from the post of Forest Guard, can be reappointed again by giving an opportunity. The resignation submitted by respondent No.5 was examined by the State Government and decided to allow him to re-join his service back in the Department as Forest Guard, as is evident from communication dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure A-8). Thereafter, respondent No.5 has been allowed to join his service back in the Department as Forest Guard provisionally and simultaneously, the matter was decided to be taken up with the Personnel Department for confirmation/advice.

The plea of the petitioner who appeared in person is that once respondent No.5 had submitted his resignation, which was accepted, as is evident fro m the perusal of communication dated 29.03.2017, othe post fell vacant, ought to have been offered to him, sinc e he was at Serial No.1 in the waiting list. He further contended that the action on the part of the respondents to accept the rejoining of respondent No.5 is illegal for the reason that once it was clearly mentioned in the commCunication dated 29.03.2017 that the R&P Rules don’t provide to give an opportunity to rejoin, the action on the part of the respondents-State to allow respondent No.5 to rejoin, is illegal inasmuch as it has marred his prospects of appointment. He further contended that appointment of respondent No.5 is not of rejoining, but it tantamounts to offering him fresh appointment and once his resignation was accepted, respondents-State could not have offered him the fresh appointment.

Respondents No.1 to 4 file