Abhimanyu Tiwari VsState Of Rajasthan

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer on temporary basis vide order dated 14.08.2018.

As per the above appointment order, petitioner was required to join his services on 29.08.2018, however, since, the petitioner was pursuing his

Senior Residency, he sought extension of date of joining.

Petitioner’s request was duly acceded to by the State Government, vide order dated 28.08.2018. According to the said order dated 28.08.2018,

the petitioner was given six months’ extension.

Indisputably, the petitioner had offered to join on 28.02.2019, which is evident from the order of the Chief Medical & Health Officer,

Sriganganagar.

According to Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar, period of six months was ended on 27.02.2019, hence, he did not permit the

petitioner to join. As a consequence thereof, impugned order dated 13.09.2019 came to be passed, whereby appointment of 46 Medical Officers were

cancelled, who had failed to join by the due date.

The petitioner submitted many representations requesting the respondents to permit him to join on the post of Medical Officer, but the same were

not heeded and led to impugned order dated 13.09.2019.

Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order dated 13.09.2019 contended that pursuant to petitioner’s request, he was

given six months’ extension for joining. It was argued that as per the appointment order dated 14.08.2018, he was required to join on or before

29.08.2018 and since an extension of period of six months was granted, such period was over on 28.02.2019. As such there was no lapse on

petitioner’s part, as he had admittedly reported, but he was not allowed to do the same.

Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has remained negligent and has omitted to join within the

period stipulated. Hence, cancellation of his appointment order is in accordance with law.

Heard learned counsel for rival parties.

According to the appointment order dated 14.08.2018, the petitioner was required to give his joining on 29.08.2018 and by virtue of order dated

28.08.2018, the petitioner was allowed six months’ time for joining. As such date of joining was shifted to 28.02.2019.

According to respondents, six months period should commence from 14.08.2018, the date of appointment order, which has ended on 13.02.2019;

whereas according to petitioner six months’ extension would commence from 29.08.2018 and would come to an end on 28.02.2019.

In my considered opinion, the period allowed by way of appointment order dated 14.08.2018 was up to 29.08.2018 and, as such, terminus quo for

six months period would be 29.08.2018. Hence, petitioner having offered his joining on 28.02.2019 cannot be said to have defaulted.

In the opinion of this Court, the stand of respondents is clearly illegal. Respondents’ assertion that extended period ended on 13.02.2019,

cannot be countenanced.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.09.2019 qua petitioner is quashed and set aside. The

respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join duties within a period of two weeks from today.

In case there is any other impediment in the way of the petitioner, other than the order dated 13.09.2019, the respondent shall pass a speaking

order in case they are of the view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to join.

In the event of respondent’s failure to permit the petitioner from joining his duties, the petitioner shall be deemed to have joined his duties from

01.02.2019. Petitioner shall be entitled for all monetary and other benefits from such date.

Stay petition also stands disposed of.