AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bist, Actg. C.J.
On 2nd July, 2014, learned counsel for the respondents sought one day''s time for seeking instructions. Today, learned counsel for the State submits that though he has informed respondents No. 1 & 2, but no instructions have been received by him as yet.
Mr. Anurag Bisaria, is not present in the Court due to his personal reasons.
On 28/29 August, 2013, the petitioner moved an application to his parent department for issuing a ''No Objection Certificate'' for permitting him to serve in the State of Uttarakhand as Chief Environment Officer, Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Dehradun. The said ''No Objection Certificate'' was forwarded by the parent department of the petitioner to the State of Uttarakhand for appointing him as a Chief Environment Officer in the said Board. On 10.09.2013, the respondent No. 2 appointed petitioner as Chief Environment Officer on deputation in Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Dehradun. On 12th September, 2013, parent department of the petitioner issued a relieving order and sent a copy of the same to the State of Uttarakhand. Thereafter, on 16.09.2013, the petitioner submitted his joining before the Principal Secretary of the Department of Environment Protection and Chairman, Pollution Control Board, Dehradun. Suddenly, on the next day, i.e. on 17.09.2013, the respondent No. 2 passed an order to keep the order of appointment dated 10.09.2013 in abeyance, but no reason was disclosed. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent No. 2 for recalling the order dated 17.09.2013.
It is not disputed that the order of appointment dated 10th September, 2013, was passed by respondent No. 2 after considering the application of the petitioner and also ''No Objection Certificate'' was given by the parent department of the petitioner. In the order impugned (dated 17.09.2013) no reason has been disclosed for keeping the same in abeyance. According to us, this is harassment of a person. It was always open for the respondent No. 2 not to give appointment to the petitioner on the post and reject his application, but once the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Chief Information Officer in Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Dehradun and he joined the post, the subsequent order passed by respondent No. 2 keeping the appointment dated 10.09.2013 in abeyance, does not appear to be valid.
We are told that the petitioner is staying in Dehradun since September, 2013 and is making representations to the authorities concerned, but in vain. The respondent-authorities should have taken a final decision in the matter.
Considering all the facts mentioned above, we stay the operation of the order dated 17.09.2013, till further orders. Respondents shall permit the petitioner to work provisionally on the post he was given appointment vide letter dated 10.09.2013.
List after six weeks.
In the meantime, respondents may file counter affidavit(s).