SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is `bishnoi' by caste. He passed his Bachelor of Engineering (B. E.) Examination in the year 1994 with 70. 30% marks. By a common order dated 14. 11. 94 (Annex. 1), along with others, the petitioner was also appointed as Lecturer at Government Polytechnic College, Pali on temporary basis. While working, he appeared before Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R. P. S. C.) for permanent selection for the post of Lecturer in the year 1995 and was also selected. Accordingly, he was given permanent posting under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1973 vide order dated 9. 8. 96 (Annex. 2) and jointed as Lecturer in Electrical Engineering at Bikaner in August, 1996. THE petitioner also appeared in Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) examination conducted by I. I. T. Mumbai in 1999 and passed the said examination on 31. 3. 99 and thus, became eligible to get admission in M. Tech. 99 course conducted by I. I. T. , Delhi. On applications being invited by I. I. T. , Delhi from eligible candidates for M. Tech. course, the petitioner also applied for the same. He also sent his application for study leave to the department along with N. O. C. issued by the respondent No. 3 Principle, Government Polytechnic College, Barmer. He was called for interview on 26. 5. 99 vide letter dated 5. 5. 99 issued by I. I. T. , Delhi (Annex. 5) and selected for getting admission to M. Tech. course by an order dated 1. 6. 99 (Annex. 6), as per the order, he was required to join the course on 22. 7. 99. He was also granted permission by the State Government to do the M. Tech. course at I. I. T. Delhi by an order dated 13. 7. 99 (Annex. 7 ). However, by a letter dated 17. 11. 99 (Annex. 8), the respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that his permission granted by the State Government for M. Tech. course has been cancelled, therefore, he should join the Government Polytechnic College, Barmar immediately. THE said order Annex. 8 was received by the petitioner on 25. 11. 99 at Delhi along with one undated letter (Annex. 9) of Technical Education Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur signed by the Deputy Secretary of cancellation of permission granted earlier. THEse impugned orders at Annex. 8 and 9 are challenged by the petitioner by way of this writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) IT may be stated that though served, except by the respondent No. 2 Director of Technical Education, Rajasthan, nobody has filed any reply affidavit to this petition. The respondent No. 2 has filed reply affidavit and has seriously opposed this petition. Learned counsel Mr. Bishnoi vehemently submitted that the undated order Annex. 9 passed by the respondent No. 1 State Government communicated to the petitioner along with the order dated 17. 11. 99 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 3 is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that having granted that permission way back on 13. 7. 99, it was not open to the State Government to cancel such permission unilaterally without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. However, learned counsel Mr. Sharma appearing for the respondent No. 2 vehemently submitted that there was no question of granting any opportunity to the petitioner before cancelling the permission by the State Government because the State Government had earlier wrongly granted the permission by the order dated 13. 7. 99 (Annex. 7) and as soon as it came to its notice, it has cancelled the permission of the petitioner as another Lecturer Anand Vyas was already given permission and that the petitioner was wrongly granted permission because he has not completed full three years of service from the date of his selection by RPSC as provided under Rule 110 (2) of RSR, 1951. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the earlier permission granted by the State Government as per order at Annex. 7 was subsequently cancelled by the State Government on two grounds:- (a) That only one person can be granted permission as per 20% quota and that one Lecturer Anand Vyas was already granted permission, and, (b) that the petitioner did not complete full three years service from the date of his selection by RPSC. Rule 110 (2) of RSR Rules, 1951 is as under:- " 110 (2) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) study leave will also be admissible to a temporary Government servant who has completed three years continuous service provided the initial appointment has been made on the advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in case the post falls within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission or the appointment has been made by the competent authority in accordance with the rules. . . ". As per the submission of Mr. Sharma for the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was selected by RPSC only on 9. 8. 96 and when he was given permission earlier as per order dated 13. 7. 99 (Annex. 7), admittedly he had not completed three years continuous service, therefore, it was wrong on the part of the State Government to grant such permission by the order dated 13. 7. 99 (Annex. 7 ). He submitted that as soon as the mistake committed by the State Government was brought to its notice, it had corrected its mistake by passing this undated order at Annex. 9 in 1999 and on the basis of this order (Annex. 9), the respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order dated 17. 11. 99 (Annex. 8 ).
(3.) HOWEVER, learned counsel Mr. Bishnoi for the petitioner submitted that the continuous service of the petitioner should be considered from 14. 11. 84 as he was earlier appointed as Lecturer on temporary basis by an order dated 14. 11. 94 (Annex. 1) as provided under the later part of Rule 110 (2) of RSR Rules, 1951. From Rule 110 (2) quoted above by me, it is clear that three years continuous service is to be counted from the date of his initial appointment made on the advice by RPSC or the appointment has been made by the competent authority in accordance with the Rules. It is not in dispute that the initial temporary appointment of the petitioner was made by the competent authority on 14. 11. 94 (Annex. 1 ). In that case, it would mean that the petitioner had already completed three years on 14. 11. 97, therefore, in my opinion it was wrong on the part of the State Government to cancel the permission granted to the petitioner on the ground that he had not completed three years of service from the date of his selection by RPSC. Even if I had not accepted the above submission of Mr. Bishnoi that the petitioner has already completed three years service from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1994, then also from the date of his selection by RPSC in 1996 i. e. on 9. 8. 96, three years period would have been over on 9. 8. 99. In that case, having completed three years of service from the date of selection by RPSC, later on it was not open to the State Government to cancel permission granted by it earlier in 1999 by an undated order Annex. 9 because the petitioner had already completed three years even from the date of selection by RPSC on 9. 8. 99. Perhaps, because of that only in the impugned order at Annex. 9, no date is mentioned. Be that as it may. ;