SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk cum Typist in the Sessions Division Narnaul on 18.09.2009. While working as Additional Ahlmad in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul, the petitioner applied for the post of Clerk cum Junior Data Entry Operator in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak through proper channel. The petitioner was duly selected for such post in the university. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 06.01.2012 to the District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul seeking resignation from service. Vide order dated 07.11.2012, the request made by the petitioner as regards resignation was duly accepted. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 05.02.2013 at Annexure P-4, whereby his application seeking withdrawal of his resignation and for being re-appointment on the post of Additional Ahlmad has been declined.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) cannot sustain as the same is a non speaking order and no reasons have been assigned for declining the request of the petitioner seeking re-appointment. In support of such submission counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana,1993 4 SCT 716. That apart, counsel has also argued that there have been compelling reasons on account of which the petitioner had been forced to submit his initial request seeking resignation from service. In this regard, counsel would refer to the application dated 19.12.2012 (Annexure P-3) submitted to the District & Sessions Judge, Narnaul, wherein averments made to the effect that the father of the petitioner had suffered heart attack and had been taken in hospital in Jaipur and it was on account of the financial condition of the family and mental tension that the request for resignation has been submitted. It has been argued that such extreme circumstances, which were the basis of submitting the request for resignation have not been taken into account while passing the impugned order dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-4).

(3.) Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length, I find that the claim of the petitioner is wholly misconceived.