Sabina, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the decision in similar writ petitions disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2019 (main petition S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15411/2018).
(2.) The operative part of the order dated 14.03.2019 reads as under: ‘'I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were recruited as Teachers Gr. III during Recruitment, 2012 and were posted at particular districts. When Recruitment, 2013 was held, the petitioners with a view to take chance to get appointment in their home districts, again applied and were successful in getting appointments at district of their choice. Based on the above situation, they applied for permission to get relieved from place of their posting. Apparently, the relieving was not granted forcing the petitioners to resign from the post for taking up the assignment at their home districts/ districts of their choice pursuant to the Recruitment, 2013. When similar nature matters came up before this Court, wherein, petitioners were directed to be relieved by way of interim order and they were relieved and the period of their service was not being counted for the purpose of provisions of Rule 24 and 26 of the Rules of 1996, petitions were decided by lead judgment in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra), wherein, following directions were issued:- "In view thereof, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed, as the petitioners have already been relieved pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the said interim orders passed by this Court directing to relieve the petitioners are made absolute. It is further directed that the respondents while dealing with the cases of the petitioners pertaining to their pay fixation etc. would follow the provisions of Rules 24 and 26 of the RSR as per law. In cases where the petitioners have been relieved provisionally under the directions of this Court, the Authorities would pass appropriate orders pertaining to relieving of the petitioners alongwith their last pay certificate (L.P.C.), where they were serving earlier." Pursuant thereto, vide Circular dated 9.8.2018 (Annex.R/1), the respondents have decided not to challenge the order (supra) and have issued guidelines for following the directions in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) / Virender Singh (supra), while superseding the Circulars dated 2.9.2015 and 4.12.2017. In view of the fact that the circulars, which have been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petitions, already stand superseded by order dated 9.8.2018 (Annex.R/1) and essentially the relief as prayed has been granted by the respondents, the petitions to that extent have been rendered infructuous. However, in view of the fact that in case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) / Virender Singh (supra), the candidates had not resigned and they were relieved under the directions of the Court and the present petitioners had resigned from previous service, their cases are sought to be distinguished. Such distinction is contrary to the express provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996, which reads as under:- "Rule 25. Forfeiture of service on resignation (1) Resignation from a service or a post, entails forfeiture of past service. (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. (3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub- rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time admissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government service on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him." A bare look at sub-Rule 2 of Rule 25 reveals that even if a resignation is given to take up with proper permission, another appointment under the Government, where the service qualifies, the same does not entail forfeiture of past service and in those circumstances, the stand sought to be taken by the respondents on account of the resignations given by the petitioners, cannot be sustained. Even in cases, where it is submitted that permission was not taken, in view of the fact that the Circular dated 9.8.2018 (Annex.R/1) does not make any distinction in the case of resignation and as the petitioners instead of approaching the Court as in the case of Dhanraj Meena and Ors. (supra) were forced to resign, they cannot be discriminated. So far as the fact that in cases where permission was granted to the petitioners indicating restrictions is concerned, as the restrictions indicated are de hors the Rules and specifically Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1996, cannot take away the benefits of the petitioners as conferred under the statute. In view of the above factual and legal position, merely on account of petitioners have tendered resignation, they cannot be deprived of the benefit of counting of their past services. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The petitioners would be entitled to same relief as granted in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) / Virender Singh (supra) as per Circular dated 9.8.2018 (Annex.R/1). Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of two months from today. No order as to costs.''
(3.) All the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15411/2018 and other connected petitions.;