IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26125 of 1999 Between: 1 The Commissioner-I , Officer of the Commissioner of Customer and Central Excise, Hyderabad-I, Commissionerate, L.B.Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 2 The Chief Commissioner , Customs and Central Excise, L.B.Stadium Road, hyderabad 3 The Dy. Commissioner (P& V) officer of the Commissioner of Customs, and Central Excise , Hyderabad-I , commissionerate L.B.Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 4 The Chairman , Central Board of Excise and Customs North Block, New Delhi-11 0002 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Y.Murali son of Sri B.Yagneshwaran Small Industrial Development Bank of India, (SIDBI ) ,O.C.H.C.Building,Janpath Bhuvaneshwar, 751001 .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particulary one inthe nature of Certiorari by calling for the records of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in OA.No.387/1998 and quash the orders dt. 17/06/1999 and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.BHASKAR The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.26125 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order made in O.A.No.387 of 1998 dated 17-6-1999 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The respondent– applicant ﬁled the above O.A. questioning the order passed in October, 1997 issued by the ﬁrst petitioner rejecting his case for grant of lien against the post held by him before he was appointed in other department. 2. It may be necessary to notice that while working as Inspector of Customs and Central Excise, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Manager in SIDBI through proper channel. He was selected and appointment was given. Before accepting the said appointment in SIDBI, the applicant submitted a letter of resignation dated 07-6-1996 seeking to relieve him from duties to enable him to join in the SIDBI and requested the authority to keep his lien at least for a period of two years. The applicant was relieved, but no decision was taken as to the maintenance of his lien in the department. Accordingly, the applicant reported to duty in SIDBI at Bhubaneswar. Since he felt that the climatic condition at Bhubaneswar would not be conducive for his wife, he submitted a representation to the petitioner concerned to take him on duty as his resignation was accepted without deciding his lien and hence, it must be presumed that the lien would be given to him in due course. However, by letter dated 28-08-1997, the petitioners replied stating that the request to keep the lien on the post of Inspector of Central Excise from the date of his relieving duty, was not acceded to, as he had not passed Paper-IV – Law – before his relieving from duty, for declaring the probation as successful and conﬁrm him in the post of Inspector. Hence, he was further directed to tender his valid resignation to the post of Inspector. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant ﬁled O.A. challenging the proceedings issued in October, 1997. The Tribunal, after detailed consideration of the matter, had given the following directions: “a) The applicant should be taken back as a probationer and on accepting the post, the remaining period of probation should be completed by him in accordance with the rules; b) He should be subjected, after the completion of that probation period, for conﬁrmation in accordance with the rules. His further continuance in the Department as Inspector has to be decided on that basis; c) But, the applicant is entitled for seniority only from the date when he is taken back as a probationer in pursuance of this Order. If the seniority is given right from the date he joined the probation earlier that will cause irreparable hardships to those probationers who joined in between. Hence, this direction as regards his seniority.” Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 3. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for unoﬃcial respondent nor is there any representation. In fact, to enable the respondent to make his own arrangement to engage a counsel, the matter was adjourned from time to time. 4. It is very strange that the Tribunal had dealt with the matter of this nature by passing an order as noticed above. We are of the considered opinion that when the respondent had resigned and sought for maintaining his lien, the same could be considered in a given case. But, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the petitioner has not passed Paper-IV – Law, before his probation could be declared. Thus, it is clear that the respondent was relieved by accepting his resignation even before his declaration of probation. Such an employee whose probation was not declared cannot claim lien over his post. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has made an erroneous approach and passed the impugned order. The impugned order therefore is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 20-08-2008 bsc