In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh L.P.A. No. 150 of 2008 Date of decision: April 17, 2009 Rohtash Singh ... Appellant Vs. Mewat Model School, Ferozepur and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rohtash Singh, appellant in person. Mr. Kartar Singh, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Shiv Naraian, PA for respondent No.4. A.N. Jindal, J This L.P.A. is directed against the judgment dated 10.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Civil Writ Petition for issuing directions to the respondents to absorb the appellant-petitioner (herein referred as 'the appellant') as a Principal or in the alternative to issue a writ of certiorari and mandamus and any other appropriate writ quashing the orders dated 8.5.1995 (Annexure P-10) and 13.3.1995 (Annexure P-8). Vide order dated 4.3.1985 (Annexure P-1), the appellant was offered the post of Principal of Mewat Model School Society, Gurgaon (herein referred as 'the Society'). In pursuance to the said orders, he joined as Principal on 8.4.1985. Later on he was made regular on the said post. Subsequently, he continued working as such in the school run by the Society without any break. He had un-blemished good record. In the year 1987 Navodaya Vidhalaya Samiti (herein referred as 'the Samiti') advertised the posts of Principals for the school run by the Samiti with better scales than that of the Principal of the Society. They had invited application from those who were already working in the recognized institutions. Attracted by the said advertisement, the appellant applied to the Samiti on 28.12.1987 through the Society and was selected as such. Consequently, the appellant after the permission of the Society joined the L.P.A. No. 150 of 2008 -2- *** post of Principal in the Samiti, vide Annexure P-4. It would be pertinent to mention here that at the time of joining the school under the Samiti, the appellant had furnished an affidavit to the society which he has now challenged saying that the same was under compulsion and coercion. After furnishing the affidavit and in pursuance to the appointment letter Annexure P-3, the appellant joined the Regional Office of the Samiti on 4.7.1988. This period of deputation being of three years was to expire on 23.7.1991, but before the expiry of the said date i.e. 1.6.1991, he applied to the Regional Office of the Samiti for absorption in the Samiti. Thereafter, he also furnished consent regarding such absorption. However, instead of considering him for permanent absorption in the Samiti and without putting his case for absorption before the Competent Absorption Committee, vide order dated 18.9.1992, wrote for repatriating him to his parent Society. Aggrieved by the said letter, the appellant filed C.W.P. No. 13196 of 1992, against the said repatriation order dated 18.9.1992, whereupon, the High Court stayed the operation of the impugned order and ultimately it also quashed the repatriation order on 8.9.1994 and directed the respondents to consider the case of absorption as per rules and regulations. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.8.1994 (Annexure P-6), the appellant was intimated that they were proposing to absorb him permanently in the Samiti provided he should give his willingness for absorption and also tender resignation with effect from the date when he completed the deputation period from the post held by him in his parent department. He accordingly sent his willingness for permanent absorption. He also sent his consent along with resignation on 19.8.1994. He further pleaded that after his recruitment as Principal in July, 1988, number of Principals who had joined in the year 1989-90 and 1991 on the same terms and conditions were absorbed. The maximum period of deputation with the Samiti was 3 years and after the expiry of two years each Principal recruited/appointed on deputation with the Samiti was entitled to absorption in the Samiti. All the principals who had completed three years of service on deputation were permanently absorbed in the Samiti and none of them was repatriated to his parent department. Vide order dated 13.3.1995 (Annexure P-8), the appellant was again repatriated to his parent department with the direction to report for duty to his parent L.P.A. No. 150 of 2008 -3- *** department. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Civil Writ Petition No.4360 of 1995 in the High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 24.3.1995 (Annexure P-9). The joining report submitted by him with the Society was rejected vide order dated 8.8.1995 (Annexure P-10). Now he has challenged that the Society was bound to repatriate him. The affidavit submitted by him was under coercion and compulsion. He was not offered any opportunity before making refusal to join him. Thus, while challenging the aforesaidi orders, he has sought aforesaid directions against the Samiti to absorb him or to direct the Society to take him back in service. The respondents No.1 to 3 are the authorities of the Society, whereas, the respondent No.4 is the Samiti. The respondents No.1 to 3 have basically relied upon the voluntarily furnished affidavit Annexure P-5 by the appellant at the time of leaving the post of Principal. They have also stated that from the document Annexure P-2, it is clear that when the application of the appellant was routed through the respondents, they had not given any undertaking that in the event of their selection, the appellant would be allowed to have lien with them, rather only no objection certificate was issued to the appellant. It is clear that he had ceased to have any lien with the Society in the event of his selection in the Samiti. After the expiry of three years of his service with the Samiti on 23.7.1991, there was no question of any deputation in view of the affidavit Annexure P-5 and no objection certificate Annexure R1/2. It was further averred that since the appellant had no lien with them therefore, they had filled up the post which was occupied by him, as such there was no question for taking him back as he had himself resigned from the post of Principal w.e.f. 25.7.1991 and the appellant had made a request after a lapse of seven years for taking him back while relying upon the affidavit annexure P-5, application annexure P- 2, no objection certificate annexure R-1/2 and the order Annexure P-10. The respondents No.1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Similarly, the respondent No.4 in its written statement while denying all the allegations mainly relied upon the order passed by this Court in CWP No.4360 of 1995, dated 24.3.1995, which reads as under :- L.P.A. No. 150 of 2008 -4- *** “Counsel for the petitioner at this stage argued that his parent department may not take him back as his lien was kept in that department for three years only and the petitioner has worked in the borrowing department for more than three years. Prima facie we do not think that parent department would take such a position but if the parent department takes such a stand then the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition against that action.” It has been further pleaded that the appellant was repatriated to his parent department vide order dated 24.3.1995 and he had challenged the said repatriation order before the High Court by way of a writ petition which was also dismissed and all the pleas raised by him were rejected vide order dated 24.3.1995. Thereafter the appellant approached the Society with a request to allow him to join but the Vice Chairman of the Society, vide order dated 8.5.1995 (Annexure P-10) declined the request on the ground that no lien with the Society was kept and the relieving certificate issued by the D.C.-cum-Chairman, M.M.S.S. Gurgaon will have no binding effect on the Society and thereafter the appellant had preferred the present writ petition with a prayer for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-10 and P-8 and for directing the respondents for absorbing him as Principal. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order had dismissed the writ petition. As far as the case of Samiti is concerned, it would be suffice to say that the appellant had tried his luck by challenging the order of repatriation before the High Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.4360 of 1995, which was dismissed on 24.3.1995. From the bare reading of the order passed by the Division Bench as referred in the preceding paras, it is clear that since the appellant had no absolute right to be absorbed in the Samiti, therefore, he could not maintain his claim. As such after the doors of the Samiti were shut after the order dated 24.3.1995 was passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the appellant could not claim any right or had any cause of action against the respondent No.4 for claiming his absorption or any other type of service in the Samiti. L.P.A. No. 150 of 2008 -5- *** Now coming to his right of taking him back in service by the Society, it may be observed that the appellant after completion of three years of service on deputation with the Samiti had lost his lien with the Society. As such, after the loss of lien with the Society, it was not duty bound to take him back into service. Not only this, at the time leaving the post of Principal of M.M.S. Ferozepur, Zirka, the appellant had furnished an affidavit of his own accord submitting that in case he is not permanently absorbed in the Samiti, he shall not claim any right to come back to the Society and there shall be no lien over his post with the Society. The relieving order Annexure P-4 reveals that lien of the appellant was to be kept for three years on the post held by him and not beyond that. Affidavit Annexure P-5 furnished by him also smashes his case. There are no allegations that he never submitted any such affidavit. It appears to be motivated attempt with a view to get better prospectus in service career. It is something different that he failed to achieve the target but the intentional attempt made by him relinquishing his right of lien over the job and his non return and repatriation to the parent department, now cannot be withdrawn by him, he could not succeed in getting himself absorbed in the other department. The appellant was not the layman to say that the affidavit was under pressure/compulsion or coercion. He being the principal knew all about his good or bad and he intentionally submitted the said affidavit. Now such relinquishment made by him through affidavit could not be read against the Society. In any case, the appellant since had returned much after the expiry of three years or completion of his deputation of three years, cannot be taken back in service. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same stand dismissed. (Uma Nath Singh) (A.N. Jindal) Judge Judge April 17, 2009 deepak