DR. SONIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Haryana Public Service Commission for appointment as Dental Surgeon in a process of direct recruitment. The Government accepted the recommendation and offered the post vide letter dated 30.12.2013. On the day following joining service, the petitioner made a request that she may be granted extraordinary leave from 22.01.2014 to 30.06.2016 to enable her to complete her ongoing MDS course, which she was pursuing before and during the selection process. As she did not turn up for duty thereafter, she was warned by a letter dated 08.05.2014 to resume her duties. The petitioner rejoined on 16.05.2014. On 02.09.2014, she made a request that she would have no objection if she was granted leave without pay till the completion of MDS course. Thereafter, the petitioner disappeared from the scene without pre or post information to the respondent Department or obtaining orders.

(2.) Mr. R.K. Malik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, argues that she was within a right to presume that the request for leave without pay would be deemed to be accepted since nothing was given to her in writing by the office rejecting the prayer. This argument is fallacious and is built on a false notion that an office runs on deemed fictions and is thus rejected. It is the duty of the Government employee to elicit orders and then act accordingly. There is no order passed by the Government in writing placed on record permitting her to continue her studies and to keep her dental chair warm for her return. Therefore, acceptance could not be read by default. After a rather long silence till 30.04.2016, the petitioner filed a representation that she would complete her MDS course by 30.06.2016 and she may be allowed to join her duties w.e.f. 01.07.2016. By this time, three years had gone by. There was no response from the Government which brought her to file another representation on 22.11.2016. On this letter, she was informed by the Department that her services have already been dispensed with vide order dated 12.09.2014/16.10.2014.

(3.) Mr. Malik relies on the instructions dated 18.07.1972 (Annex P-4) to propagate his contention by aid of this Govt. letter. These executive instructions deal with the subject of 'Requisition of Higher Educational qualifications and Permission to Government Servants'. The relevant extract of the instructions reads as follows: