Order

02/08/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate so that he can join on the post of Senior Demonstrator (Forensic Medicine).

2. The facts precisely stated are that the respondent RPSC issued an advertisement dated 17.01.2020, and invited applications from eligible candidates to vie for the post of Senior Demonstrator in various subjects.

3. The condition of the advertisement, which is relevant for the case at hand is, the condition No.17, which reads thus: "17- vkosnd tks igys ls gh ljdkjh lsok ;Fkk@tSls dUs nzh;@jkT;@ljdkjh miØeksa esa fu;qDr gS ,oa mudk p;u mDr inksa gsrq HkrhZ esa gks x;k gS] mUgsa vius fu;ksDrk ls vukifÙk izek.k&i= ;Fkk le; izLrqr djuk vko”;d gksxkA”

4. After submitting the application form, the petitioner appeared in written examination held on 15/16.09.2020. When the petitioner cleared the written examinations, he filed online application form for grant of ‘NOC’.

5. The petitioner has cleared the interview and his name has been recommended for appointment.

6. Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the terms of the recruitment notification, issued by the RPSC, the petitioner was required to furnish ‘NOC’ from his employer – respondent Medical & Health Department, at the time of interview and, hence, he submitted his online application form for ‘NOC’ on 18.06.2021, before the interviews were held on 14.07.2021.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of respondents’ reluctance from issuing ‘NOC’ to him, he will be unable to join the post of Senior Administrator (Forensic Medicine)

and his right to get appointment will be frustrated.

8. Ms. Vandana Bhansali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State vehemently opposed petitioner’s prayer for grant of ‘NOC’. She contended that the petitioner was required to submit his online application form for ‘NOC’ prior to filling up the application form for the recruitment in question or at least before appearing in the written examination.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and the circular dated 30.01.2019, issued by the respondent – State and argued that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have applied for grant of ‘NOC’ at the earliest or at least prior to appearing in the written examinations.

10. She argued that in terms of the circular dated 30.01.2019, the respondents can initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, who has appeared in the written examination without obtaining ‘NOC’ from the respondent - State.

11. Heard.

12. Upon perusal of the record what transpires is that the petitioner had submitted his application in the month of January, 2020, before being appointed as Medical Officer in the respondent Department.

13. Hence, the petitioner could not apply for issuance of ‘NOC’ at the time of submitting application form pursuant to recruitment notification, which was issued on 17.01.2020.

14. It is also not in dispute that petitioner had submitted application for grant of leave from 15.09.2020 to 17.09.2020 clearly indicating that he was to appear in Senior Demonstrator examinations conducted by the RPSC. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner yet again filed an application on 12.07.2021 and applied for two days’ leave for 13.07.2021 and 14.07.2021 so as to appear in the interview for the post of Senior Demonstrator.

15. This being the position, the fact that the petitioner had appeared in the written examination so also in the interview pursuant to recruitment notification dated 17.01.2020 for the post of Senior Demonstrator was well known to the respondents.

16. True it is, that the petitioner proceeded to apply for ‘NOC’ on 18.06.2021, after he had appeared in the written examination, but the same was in any case filed before he had appeared in the interview.

17. Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,