SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 2/2/2016 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No. 3 whereby respondent No. 3 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer.

(2.) Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was discharged from the Army while working as Hawaldar Missile Regiment on 1/11/2008. The petitioner thereafter applied for the post of Anuveshak in the respondent's department and he was selected and appointed on the said post vide order dtd. 4/8/2011. The petitioner joined the aforementioned post in the office of Janpad Panchayat Berla. The respondent department had further issued an advertisement for the appointment of Assistant Statistical Officer along with the post of Anuveshak and the petitioner who is hardworking and studious, after obtaining no objection certificate from his department for applying for the aforementioned post, submitted his application form for appointment on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer. After completion of the open competition he was selected from the Ex-Serviceman Category and an order of appointment was issued on 27/1/2014. The petitioner after getting the relieving order joined the said post on 6/2/2014. Respondent No. 3 surprisingly issued a show cause notice on the basis of the circular dtd. 25/2/2015 issued by respondent No. 2 wherein it has been mentioned that the Ex-Serviceman candidate cannot obtain benefits more than once. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice mentioning all the facts that the circular dtd. 25/2/2015 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as he has been appointed much prior on 27/1/2014 and at that relevant time there was no such condition in the state services. Respondent No. 3 without considering the reply in its entirety and the effect of the circular dtd. 25/2/2015 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner vide order dtd. 2/2/2016 (Annexure-P/1).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. He next submits that respondent No. 3 failed to consider that the petitioner was appointed in the department of respondent No. 3 in the year 2011 and subsequently also he had applied for the higher post through direct recuritment in the same department where he was already working after obtaining no objection certificate. Respondent No. 3 failed to consider that the circular enforcing rider of obtaining the benefit of Ex-serviceman status by any candidate only once, has been issued in the year 2015 only and therefore it would not affect the service of the petitioner who was already selected in the selection proceedings started in the year 2013 and appointment on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer vide order dtd. 27/1/2014. He submits that the circular dtd. 25/2/2015 cannot be applied retrospectively. Respondent No. 3 misinterpreted the circular/DOPT of the Government of India for applying in the case of the petitioner as the circular of the Government of India until and unless adopted by the State or implemented in the rules of State services it cannot have effect in State services.