M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the action of the respondents for not relieving the petitioners for joining the post in pursuance to new appointment, thus petitioners were forced to resign from the post.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance to the selection on the post of Teacher Gr.III, the petitioners were appointed in the year 2012 by different orders. In the case of Vijay Kumar Jagid, it was vide order dated 10th September, 2012. The respondents thereupon issued another advertisement in the year 2013 for the same post. The petitioners applied for the post again after seeking no objection certificate from the department. The petitioners again remained successful in the selection and accordingly, appointed on the same post in the year 2015 by different orders. The petitioners made a request to relieve and when the request was not accepted, resigned from the post. The petitioners then joined the post in pursuance to new order of appointment but are deprived to get benefit of past service. The prayer in the writ petitions is to hold action of the respondents not to relieve the petitioners to be arbitrary. It is despite of the fact that petitioners appeared in selection pursuant to the no objection given by the respondents themselves and accordingly, to quash the order affecting the rights of the petitioners.
(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. S.K. Gupta submits that issue raised by the petitioners herein was an issue before the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in bunch of writ petitions led by SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2490/2015 in the case of Saroj & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. decided on 22nd May, 2015. The Court denied any benefit to those who resigned from earlier assignment for joining new post. It is looking to the fact that after resignation, benefit of past service for any purpose, which includes, the previous period spend on probation, cannot be given. In the result, one has to be governed by the new order of appointment. In the light of the aforesaid, relief claimed by the petitioners may not be granted. It is moreso when, the respondents never forced the petitioners to resign from the post, rather they resigned from service immediately on issuance of new order of appointment in their favour. For illustration, in the case of Vijay Kumar Jagid, the petitioner was given fresh appointment vide order dated 23rd March, 2015 and he resigned from service on 26th March, 2015 itself. The resignation was within three days of the new order of appointment, thus it is even without giving request to relieve him to join the new post and thereupon, waiting for relieving, thus the allegations made against the Government are not tenable.;