*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.18357 OF 2011 % 06.09.2011 Between: # Paradha Malleswara Rao. …Petitioner And $ Special Chief Secretary to Government and others. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Ms.S.V.Indira ^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 5: G.P. for social welfare ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.6: G.P. for Education < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18357 of 2011 ORDER: Politics in India has, no doubt, attracted many for variety of reasons. In the recent past, it has become so lucrative, that even the persons in Government service got tempted to contest in the elections, going to the extent of resigning their secured employment. The petitioner was appointed as a Second Grade Teacher by the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, East Godavari District way back in the year 1986. He too got tempted to contest in the election, that took place in the year 2009 to the A.P. Legislative Assembly. As required under law, he submitted resignation to the post held by him and his resignation was accepted. Thereafter, he filed his nomination. However, he was defeated in the election. Thereafter, he started his efforts to get back into service once again. The Government has kept certain openings for such candidates, to come back to service, subject to its approval, after testing their luck in the politics. However, uniformity of treatment or objectivity is lacking. Much would depend upon the proximity of a person of this category to the Government of the day. If the person happens to be from a different political affiliation, application for according approval is rejected. In contrast, if the person is powerful enough and echoed the views of the party in power, the re-induction into service is ensured with all benefits. The petitioner appears to have fallen in the category between those two extremities. He earned the grace of the Government, but not in its entirety. His request for withdrawal of resignation was accepted and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 23.09.2010 directing that the petitioner shall be permitted to withdraw his resignation, but with a condition that he be reappointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in terms of Rule 30 (b) (c) and (d) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules as a fresh candidate. It was also observed that he petitioner shall not be entitled to count his past service for any purpose whatever. Consequential orders were issued by the appointing authority and the petitioner joined service. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not restoring his original petition and denying him, the benefit of past service. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. With the acceptance of the resignation of an employee, his relationship with the employer ceases to exist. It is only in rare and exceptional cases, that the resignations once accepted, are permitted to be withdrawn. It is rather unfortunate that the Government is encouraging the members in civil service to contest in the election, by indirectly assuring them that if they lose in the election, they can come back to service. Commitment of such employees either to the service or to the politics can easily be understood. They place their selfish interest above their respective professions or avocations. The petitioner was in fact lucky enough that he got back the employment. Such a practice does not be conducive, for a healthy democracy. If an employee feels encouraged to switch over to political life, he is most welcome. He can utilize his experience in the executive to serve the public at large effectively. However, his love or liking to the politics should not whither away with the defeat in an election. A person with wavering mind would not be useful either to the public employment or to the politics. No employee can claim right to be re-inducted into service, after his resignation was accepted. In case, the petitioner was not happy or felt aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Government, while acceding to his request, he ought to have refused the offer and challenged the condition before joining the service. He cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold viz., to accept the benefit under the G.O. and to challenge it to the extent it is against him. This Court does not find any basis to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 06.09.2011 Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18357 of 2011 Date: 06.09.2011 JSU