WP(C) 2992/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Heard Ms. P. Gogoi , learned Central Government counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner joined the Border Security Force (in short, ’BSF’), on 14 .06.2008, as a Lance Naik. Before the petitioner came into service, a Circular was issued, on 27.12.1995, by the respondents/authorities concerned allowing BS F personnel an opportunity to resign from service with, pensionary benefits, on completion of ten years of regular service. As the minimum qualifying service, under the CGS Pension Rules, 1972, is twenty years, the Circular, dated 27.12.19 95, aforementioned had to be, eventually, abandoned and withdrawn. However, the petitioner tendered his resignation from service in the month of December, 1996 , which was accepted by the authorities concerned in the BSF, under Rule 19 of t he BSF Rules, with effect from 03.03.1997. However, pension was not released in favour of the petitioner because the competent authorities in the BSF had decid ed that no pension is payable to those BSF personnel, who resigns from service a fter 1995, under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, before completing twenty years of qualifying service. In the meanwhile, the competent authorities in the BSF, in exercise of the powers under Rule 28A, read with Rule 6 of the BSF Rules, 196 9, took a decision that those persons, who had resigned after issuance of the Ci rcular, dated 27.12.1995, under Rule 19, which had been issued under the mistake n impression, and were not given pensionary benefits, should be given an opportu nity to rejoin their respective services if they so desired. A Circular was acc ordingly issued to all concerned, on 17.10.1998, and the first cut-off date, giv en to the BSF personnel to rejoin their respective services, was fixed on 30.04. 1999. Thereafter, it was extended to 30.06.1999 and the last cut-off date given was 31.08.1999. By issuing a specific letter, in this regard, the petitioner w as requested to join, but the petitioner did not. The petitioner was, then, tel egraphically informed, on 02.08.1999, that the date of joining had been extended to 31.08.1999, but the petitioner neither reported for duty nor did he give any information. So far as the BSF personnel, who had been allowed to go on retire ment on the basis of the wrong interpretation of Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, and o n the strength of the Circular, dated 27.12.1995, are concerned, they were not p aid their pension and were recalled, as indicated above. The refusal to grant p ension and also the option to join back service was put to challenge in Raj Kuma r & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors., (AIR 2006 SC 938). The Supreme Court, while considering the case of Raj Kumar (supra), divided the persons, who had resigned from service of the BSF, into two categories: namely, (A) Pre-circular: Personnel who resigned and were granted pension for special reasons, even prior to the circular dated 27.12.1995, (B) Post-circular: Personnel who resigned pursuant to the circular dated 27.12.1995. These persons were further divided into two sub-categories, namely, (i) Personnel who retired in 1996, were sanctioned pension and were, therefore, asked vide letters dated 31.10.1998, not to report for re-induction. Their pens ion has been stopped pursuant to the judgment in Rakesh Kumar (supra). These persons were further divided into two sub-categories: (a) those who are in a position to be re-inducted into service even now, (b) those who cannot be re-inducted into the service as a result of being ag e-barred or due to being medically or physically unfit. (ii) Those who retired subsequent to 1996, were not sanctioned pension, and wer e directed to report for re-induction into service or to forfeit pension benefit s by virtue of the Circular, dated 17.10.1998, and the individual letters. The petitioner challenged the order, whereby he was refused to be paid h is pension and was given the option to rejoin service. This writ petition gave rise to WP(C) No. 8353/2005. This writ petition was dismissed on 22.08.2007. T he petitioner, then, filed a review application, which was disposed of on 10.11. 2008, by observing to the effect that no case for review of the dismissal order could be made out by the petitioner, but the petitioner was given the liberty to approach the respondents/authorities concerned for his re-induction in service if such a post was still available to him and with the direction to the responde nts to do the needful in accordance with law. By order, dated 17.04.2009, the respondents have rejected the petitioner ’s representation for his re-induction into service on the ground that the petit ioner had been given repeated opportunities to rejoin his service and since the petitioner had failed to do so, he was no more entitled to rejoin and that he (i .e., the petitioner) was also not entitled to pension, because he had not comple ted the qualifying period of service of twenty years. Aggrieved by the decision, so reflected in the order, dated 17.04.2009, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of appropriate writ (s) setting aside and quashing the order, dated 17.04.2009, with further directi on to the respondents to allow the petitioner to rejoin his service. In view of the fact that the petitioner, despite receiving several oppor tunities, as indicated above, did not opt to rejoin his service, he (the petitio ner), in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, cannot be he ld entitled to rejoin service. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest o f justice, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case, warranting this Court’s interference in exercise of its ex tra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, to interfere and set aside the impugned order. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is not a dmitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.