SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who was working as Constable, General Duty (GD) in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The petitioner was allotted Constable No. 065225851 in CRPF and was working in the 78 Bn. of the said force. While working in CRPF, the petitioner intended to face a selection for the post of Sub-Inspector (Direct Entry) in Border Security Force (BSF).

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he obtained permission from CRPF and submitted his candidature before BSF for the said post. The petitioner belongs to SC category. The petitioner was selected on the post of Sub-Inspector (DE) in BSF and an offer of appointment dated 17/01/2012 was issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to join BSF at Bangalore on 21/02/2013 with further stipulation in the offer of appointment that this order will stand automatically cancelled, if petitioner fails to submit his joining on the aforesaid date. The petitioner submitted his request for relieving on 20/02/2012 Annexure-P/3. He obtained character certificate on 29/02/2012 and the final technical resignation was accepted on 09/03/2012 Annexure-P/7. On 02/03/2012, petitioner submitted an application Annexure-P/8, before B.S.F. Authorities (respondent No.4) with a request to extend the jointing time or permit him to join the STC training in some other batch. It is stated that this request was sent by fax and thereafter the petitioner was confined to bed because he was suffering from Jaundice. By placing reliance on the said report and certificate Annexure-P/10, Shri D.K. Katare learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was confined to bed between 14/03/2012 to 02/05/2012. Petitioner after recovery from the aforesaid aliment, on 04/05/2012 submitted representations for permitting him to join the BSF. These representations Annexure-P/11 and Annexure-P/12 could not fetch any result. This petition is filed with the prayer that the respondent-B.S.F. in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, be directed to permit the petitioner to enjoy the fruits of offer of appointment order dated 17/01/2012. In alternative, it is prayed that if petitioner's offer of appointment as Sub- Inspector in BSF is not made, he be allowed to join on the post of Constable (GD) in C.R.P.F.

(3.) PER Contra, Shri Nitin Agrawal learned counsel for the other side opposed the relief claimed by the petitioner. It is stated by Shri Agrawal that a bare perusal of the office order dated 08/03/2012 Annexure-P/7 shows that petitioner himself submitted the technical resignation on 29/02/2013, which was accepted after fulfilling the necessary formalities on 08/03/2012. He submits that this type of conduct of the petitioner itself shows that delay is not on the part of C.R.P.F. but it is on the part of petitioner himself. In the offer of appointment, the date on which joining should have been submitted was mentioned as 21/02/2012, but petitioner submitted the resignation after the said date on 29/02/2012, hence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that C.R.P.F. is at fault in any manner. Apart from this, as per condition 11 of the offer of appointment, the offer of appointment stood automatically cancelled on non-joining of the petitioner on 21/02/2012 and therefore, there was no question to entertain his application for extension of time. The BSF has not committed any error in not accepting the same. Shri Nitin Agrawal by placing reliance on rule 26 Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, stated that once resignation is accepted, the services rendered earlier stood forfeited. The petitioner cannot be permitted to join back in C.R.P.F. once his resignation is accepted. He submits that neither C.R.P.F. nor B.S.F. has committed any error of law and the entire situation is creation of petitioner himself.