Manish Kumar and Others v. Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2025CWP/12355/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Technical resignation vs simple resignation; 'No Objection' certificate deemed permission by department to compete for selection; Clerk post, Government of Haryana advertisement No. 04/2020; employees of District and Sessions Judge, Hisar; service benefits preserved; follows Ram Mehar (CWP No.35184 of 2019, 21.01.2025) and Parveen Saini (CWP No.10354 of 2024, 10.02.2025); refers Ravinder Singh (CWP No. 4173 of 2025, 04.03.2025); Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., oral; CWP-12355-2025 (O&M); petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Present petition allowed in the same terms and conditions as held in Ram Mehar Singh's case (supra) and Parveen Saini's Case (supra); pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of. ¶¶34

Manish Kumar and Others Vs Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the resignation tendered by the petitioners, who were selected as Clerks through advertisement No. 04/2020 while serving under the District and Sessions Judge, Hisar, must be treated as technical resignation instead of simple resignation so that they can claim service benefits from the Government of Haryana. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

The petitioners are entitled to the benefit of having the resignation tendered by them treated as technical resignation instead of simple resignation, on the detailed reasons already given by this Court in Ram Mehar Singh's case and Parveen Saini's Case, which learned counsel for the respondents could not rebut.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

Once the petitioners were given a 'No Objection' certificate to appear in the written examination for the post of Clerk, it will be deemed that permission was granted to them by the department concerned to compete for the selection for the post of Clerk as advertised by the Government of Haryana.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The claim of the petitioners is covered by the decision taken in Ram Mehar Singh's case (supra) and Parveen Saini's Case (supra).ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Clerk recruitment (advertisement No. 04/2020, Government of Haryana): serving staff of the District and Sessions Judge, Hisar, who were issued 'No Objection' certificates to appear in the written examination and were made to tender simple (not technical) resignations upon selection, are entitled to have their resignations treated as technical resignations. Following this Court's earlier decisions in Ram Mehar (CWP No.35184 of 2019, decided 21.01.2025) and Parveen Saini (CWP No.10354 of 2024, decided 10.02.2025), issuance of the 'No Objection' certificate is deemed permission from the department concerned to compete in the selection; the respondents' contention that the certificate expressly required resignation if selected, and that no prior permission was taken at the application stage, did not prevail, the Court finding the respondents' counsel unable to rebut its earlier reasons. Petition allowed in the same terms and conditions as those cases; pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

115

¶3

CWP-12355-2025 (O&M) Decided on : 02.05.2025

¶4

MANISH KUMAR AND OTHERS

¶5

..PETITIONERS

¶6

Versus

¶7

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

¶8

...RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Jasbir Singh Mor, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Ms. Diya Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1 & 8.

¶12

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners competed for the post of Clerk in pursuance to the advertisement No. 04/2020 which was advertised by the Government of Haryana and ‘No Objection’ was given by the competent authority where the petitioners were working at the relevant time i.e. the District and Sessions Judge, Hisar to appear in the written examination and thereafter, the petitioners got selected for the post in question.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that rather than giving the opportunity to submit the technical resignation, the petitioners were forced to simply resign in order to join the new job in the Government of Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said act on

¶17

RIYA 2025.05.03 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-12355-2025 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

the part of the respondents No. 8 in treating the resignation submitted by the petitioners as simple resignation instead of technical resignation is causing prejudice to the petitioners as the petitioners will not be able to claim certain benefit from the Government of Haryana qua the service which the petitioners had rendered with the particular sessions Divisions.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the question of law raised in the present petition has already been answered by this Court while passing the order in the similar writ petition i.e. CWP No.35184 of 2019 titled as Ram Mehar and another Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 21.01.2025, which views were reiterated in CWP No.10354 of 2024 titled as Parveen Saini Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Kaithal, decided on 10.02.2025 as well as in CWP No. 4173 of 2025 titled as

¶22

Ravinder Singh versus The Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶23

and others , decided on 04.03.2025, hence, the present petition may kindly be disposed of in the same terms and conditions as held in Ram Mehar Singh’s case (supra) and Parveen Saini’s Case (supra) .

¶24

Notice of motion.

¶25

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana and Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State and respondent No. 1 & 8, respectively.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 8 submits that in the present case, no prior permission was taken by the petitioners while filing the application for the post of Clerk, which was advertised by Government of Haryana, though, at the time of appearing in the preliminary written examination, No Objection was given to the petitioners but with the

¶27

RIYA 2025.05.03 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CWP-12355-2025 (O&M)

¶29

-3-

¶30

condition that in case, the petitioners are selected on the post of Clerk, they have to resign and therefore, the act on the part of the competent authority to seek simple resignation, was within the terms and conditions which were imposed while giving ‘NO Objection’ certificate to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said argument of the respondents has been considered by this Court while passing order in Ram Mehar Singh’s case (supra) and Parveen Saini’s Case (supra).

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 9. Once, the petitioners were given ‘No Objection’ certificate to appear in the written examination for the post of Clerk, as already held while passing order in Ram Mehar Singh’s case (supra) and Parveen Saini’s Case (supra) it will be deemed that the permission was granted to the petitioners by the department concerned to compete for the selection for the post of Clerk as advertised by Government of Haryana. The detailed reasons have already been given by this Court while passing orders in Ram Mehar Singh’s case (supra) and Parveen Saini’s Case (supra) , as to why the petitioners were entitled for the benefit of treating the resignation tendered by them as technical resignation instead of simple resignation.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to rebut the said reasons which have been given by this Court in Ram Mehar Singh’s case (supra) and Parveen Saini’s Case (supra) and this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioners is covered by the decision taken in Ram

¶33

Mehar Singh’s case (supra) and Parveen Saini’s Case (supra).

¶34

10.. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is allowed in

¶35

RIYA 2025.05.03 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CWP-12355-2025 (O&M)

¶37

-4-

¶38

the same terms and conditions as held in Ram Mehar Singh’s case (supra)