Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Dr Manjunatha Gr vs Central Silk Board on 12 November, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00244/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON 30.10.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 10.11.2025
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
Dr. Manjunatha G R,
S/o Rangappa G.B,
Aged about 37 years,
Scientist-D, (Agricultural Statistics),
RCS Division,
Central Silk Board,
Ministry of Textiles,
Govt. of India, Bengaluru
R/at Gyarehalli (Village),
Muthagadur (Post),
Holalkere (Taluk),
Chitradurga (Dist.),
Karnataka 577518 ... Applicant
(By Shri S.K. Pal, Advocate)
Vs.
Central Silk Board,
(Established by the Govt. of India
And Ministry of Textiles
is an Administrative Ministry)
CSB Complex,
BTM Layout, Madiwala,
Bangalore 560 068
Rept by its Member Secretary ...Respondent
(By Shri N. Amaresh, Senior Panel Counsel)
kavya shree k
CAT,
kavya shreeBangalore
k 2025.11.12
13:53:02
+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
(AS THIRD MEMBER) The instant OA was heard by a Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Shri Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J), and Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra, Member (A). There being a difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Members, the same has been referred to me as Third Member vide order dated 26.09.2025 issued by the Hon'ble Chairman under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The applicant has sought for the following reliefs:
"A. Issue writ, writs in the nature of direction to setting aside the Office letter No. CSB15(5)/2016-ES.I, dated 13.05.2025 together with letter dated 19.03.2024 and 04.11.2024 vide Annexure-A1 (colly) issued by Central Silk Board with the direction to issue required NOC and the reliving letter forthwith to the applicant so that he can proceed to join the duties on and from 06.06.2025; and/or B. Any other order or orders that this court may deem fit in the interest of justice."
kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Facts in brief are that the applicant was appointed by the Central Silk Board (CSB) as Scientist-B vide appointment letter dated 14.10.2015. The applicant successfully completed the probationary period on 22.03.2017. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted from Scientist-B to Scientist-C and Scientist-C to Scientist-D. Pursuant to the Notification issued by the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) dated 24.02.2024, the applicant placed a request to the parent organization, CSB for issue of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for submitting application for the post of Associate Professor cadre in UAS, Bangalore and submitted on the same date an undertaking to the CSB to abide by the DOPT Circular dated 23.12.2013. Subsequently, an addendum was released on 13.03.2024 by the UAS notifying that a government servant applying for selection to any service or post shall submit his application directly to the selecting authority. As soon as his selection is notified, he shall intimate the fact of his selection to the Head of the Department in which he is working and seek issue of NOC to accept appointment to the post for which he is selected.
4. However, CSB rejected the request of the applicant to issue NOC vide letter dated 19.03.2024 on the sole ground of facing kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE shortage of scientific personnel. Applicant asserts that after duly intimating the respondent CSB vide letter dated 20.03.2024, he filed an application in UAS, Bangalore for the post of Associate Professor on 25.03.2024. On receiving the interview call letter, the applicant claims that he requested for permission to attend but no intimation was received till 29.10.2024. The applicant applied for Casual Leave on 29.10.2024 citing personal ground which was duly approved. Accordingly, the applicant attended the scheduled interview on 30.10.2024 and got selected. The University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore had advised the applicant to join on or before 23.05.2025. Accordingly, the applicant submitted his Technical Resignation for the post of Scientist-D in CSB on 05.05.2025 and requested for issue of NOC and relieving order. The respondent CSB has issued the letter dated 13.05.2025 refusing to issue the NOC and also to relieve the applicant on the ground of shortage of scientific personnel. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
5. After hearing both the parties and analysing the material on record, Hon'ble Judicial Member has dismissed the OA observing that if the applicant wants to join UAS, then he is free to kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE file the regular resignation letter by following the instructions regarding the period or the deposition of the pay, etc. Normal resignation is the right of the applicant and the respondent cannot refuse. But granting the permission of technical resignation is the entire discretion of the concerned department. On the other hand, Hon'ble Administrative Member has partly allowed the OA, fixing the timeframe for compliance, directing the CSB to 1) Either, accept the Technical Resignation of the applicant OR, 2) Issue a detailed Speaking Order, giving cogent and valid reasons for the rejection of the Technical Resignation of the applicant.
6. Due to the difference of opinion, Registry was directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chairman for nomination of the Third Member. Accordingly, the matter was heard by me pursuant to the orders issued by the Hon'ble Chairman appointing me as the Third Member.
7. Learned counsel Shri S.K. Pal appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned Annexure-A1 dated 13.05.2025 together with letter dated 19.03.2024 and 30.10.2024 (received on 04.11.2024) indicates the denial of NOC and Experience Certificate kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE to the applicant for applying for the post of Associate Professor in UAS mainly due to CSB facing shortage of scientific personnel. Though initially the applicant applied for NOC from the respondent Board for submitting application in pursuant to the Notification dated 24.02.2024 issued by the UAS for the post of Associate Professor, pursuant to the Addendum issued by the UAS vide Notification dated 13.03.2024 permitting the government servant to submit his application directly to the selecting authority, the applicant submitted his application and informed about the receipt of the interview call letter and attended the interview. After getting selected, the applicant submitted the Technical Resignation on 05.05.2025. The applicant cannot rise upto the level of Scientist-F in CSB since the Board has implemented the Flexible Complementing Scheme only upto the level of Scientist-D and not upto the level of Scientist-F which is available in BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) and other such organisations.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the applicant, being a government servant governed by statutory rules, cannot claim an absolute right to resignation or relieving, especially when he had failed to obtain the mandatory No kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Objection Certificate for applying to an external post, despite clear refusal communicated by CSB vide letters dated 19.03.2024, 30.10.2024 and 13.05.2025. Learned counsel submitted that as per Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, Technical Resignation must follow proper channel and prior approval, which the applicant knowingly bypassed. The refusal to relieve the applicant is not arbitrary but is based on sound administrative grounds, including an acute shortage of scientific personnel in CSB and his involvement in ongoing research work. The applicant applied for and participated in an external recruitment process, despite clear refusal of permission by the competent authority, thereby violating the established norms of conduct applicable to government servants. Lack of promotional avenues and job mobility within CSB is not a valid ground to override organisational interest. The applicant, serving as Scientist-D, is engaged in critical research functions, and his unilateral attempt to exit service, in violation of rules and without authorisation, cannot be justified merely on personal inconvenience or perceived career progression. The applicant's exit would not only disrupt continuity in key research programs but also lead to resource loss in terms of knowledge transfer, capacity gaps and team dislocation. His disengagement would disrupt important kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE projects he is working. The applicant has been relieved from the post of Scientist-D in the Board with effect from 22.07.2025, accepting his resignation dated 21.07.2025, without any benefits at the applicant's request. Hence, the applicant cannot claim any further reliefs in the matter.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
10. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the impugned orders dated 19.03.2024, 30.10.2024 and 13.05.2025 (Annexure-A1) issued by the respondent are justifiable?
2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the applicant is entitled for technical resignation as sought for?
11. It is not in dispute that in response to the request made by the applicant dated 04.03.2024 seeking for NOC and Experience Certificate to apply for the post of Associate Professor in UAS kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE pursuant to the Notification dated 24.02.2024, it was categorically refused by the respondent Board vide letter dated 19.03.2024 informing that the Board is facing shortage of scientific personnel. Despite the same, the applicant has submitted his application directly to the UAS on 25.03.2024 subsequent to the Addendum dated 13.03.2024 issued by the UAS permitting the government servants to submit the applications directly to the selecting authority. In terms of this Addendum, the provision of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 was amended vide Notification issued dated 12.10.2020, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"Rule 11. Procedure in respect of application by Government Servants:
(1) A Government servant applying for selection to any service or post shall submit his Application directly to the selecting Authority. As soon as his selection is notified, he shall intimate the fact of his selection to the head of the department in which he is working and seek issue of no-objection certificate to accept appointment to the post for which he is selected."
(3) The initiative to seek no-objection certificate rests with the Government servant and he shall be liable to obtain and present the no-objection certificate to the authority competent to appoint him to the post to which he is selected, before the order of appointment is issued. In case no-objection certificate is deemed to have been issued under sub-rule (2), the head of the department shall be liable to intimate the same to the concerned authority.
kavya shree k
CAT,
kavya shreeBangalore
k 2025.11.12
13:53:02
+05'30'
10
OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
UAS, Bangalore is following the Government of Karnataka rules and Regulations in all its recruitment process. Hence, the following addendum:
Addendum to Reference 1 Notification:
This addendum to University Notification of even number dated: 24/02/2024. After Serial No. 13 under the heading "Instructions to applicant" the instruction No. 13 (a) may be read as follows:
"13 (a) A Government servant applying for selection to any service or post shall submit his Application directly to the selecting Authority. As soon as his selection is notified, he shall intimate the fact of his selection to the head of the department in which he is working and seek issue of no-objection certificate to accept appointment to the post for which he is selected."
12. Rule 2 (j) and (k) of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 reads as under:
"(j) "Government" means the Government of Karnataka;
(k) "Government servant" means a person who is the member of the Civil Service of the State of Karnataka or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of State of Karnataka and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State a local authority, any person or persons whether incorporated or not;"
Strictly speaking, the applicant may not come within the ambit of 'Government servant' as defined supra. Be that as it may, this Addendum would not exempt the government servant from seeking issue of No Objection Certificate to accept appointment to the post for which he is selected. It only defers the request to be submitted kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE for issue of No Objection Certificate subsequent to his selection. The stage of seeking NOC to the stage of selection, not at the stage of submitting the application, would not confer any right on the applicant to seek NOC as a matter of right.
13. The respondent having refused the permission to the applicant in submitting his application vide communication dated 19.03.2024, reiterated the same in the communications dated 30.10.2024 and 13.05.2025 (impugned) wherein, it has been stated that the competent authority did not agree to the applicant's earlier requests for issue of No Objection Certificate for submission of application/interview for the post of Associate Professor, UAS- GKVK, Bengaluru, considering the shortage of scientific personnel in CSB, and accordingly, communicated that the competent authority has not agreed to issue No Objection Certificate and acceptance of Technical Resignation. No such decision taken by the Board is wiped out or altered by this Addendum.
14. It is beneficial to refer to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, considered by both the Hon'ble Members.
kavya shree k
CAT,
kavya shreeBangalore
k 2025.11.12
13:53:02
+05'30'
12
OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
15. In Mohindhr Singh Gill and Another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the scope and applicability of Article 329 (b) regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 has made an observation that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. This observation would be of no relevance to the facts of the case since the reasons mentioned in rejecting the request of the applicant for Technical Resignation inasmuch as shortage of scientific personnel in CSB and not agreeing to the earlier request for issue of No Objection Certificate for submission of application/interview for the post of Associate Professor in UAS remains consistently the same and no additional grounds have been brought out to get it validated.
16. In Sanjay Jain vs. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd., (Civil Appeal No. 7822/2011, DD: 01.11.2018) reported in (2018) kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE 13 SCR, 740), the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to the Standing Orders 17 and 18 framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 by Air India, held that a permanent employee has a right to resign from the services by giving a notice of the period of 30 days as prescribed under Standing Order 17, and is entitled to obtain certificate from the employer for the period services have been rendered. There is no cavil on this proposition. But Technical Resignation stands on a different footing. The respondent Board is following all the service conditions applicable to central government employees to regulate the service conditions of the employees of the Board. As such, the FRSR, CCS (Leave) Rules, CCS (Conduct) Rules, CCS (CCA) Rules, CCS (Pension) Rules, and other service rules of Government of India apply mutatis mutandis to the Central Silk Board employees. Hence, applicant is governed by Rule 26 of Pension Rules, 2021 and the relevant portion of Rule 26 reads thus:
"26. Forfeiture of service on resignation.-
xxxx (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.
(3) The order accepting the resignation should clearly indicate that the Government servant has resigned to join another appointment with proper permission and a specific entry to this effect shall also be made by the Head of Office in the service book of the Government servant.
17. It is pertinent to note that a government servant intending to apply for a post or posts outside his parent office/department under the Government of India should have his application forwarded through the competent authority under whom he was serving at the time of applying for the post. Such an authority should either forward the application or withhold it according as the exigencies of public service may indicate. Once the application has been forwarded unconditionally and the person concerned is offered the post applied for, he should be relieved of his duties to join the new post as a matter of course and the question of his resigning the post held by him in such circumstances should not arise. Situations may arise where the application of a government servant was not forwarded and the government servant resigned his appointment of his own volition with a view to his taking up the new post or where it was not possible to forward his kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE application in the public interest but the government servant had volunteered to resign his post or where the conditions of service in an office demand as a matter of policy that the government servant should resign his post in the event of his taking up another post outside. In all such cases, it has been considered that resignation of public service will subsist and entail forfeiture of past service (vide OM No. 3379-E. III (b)/65, dated the 17.06.1965, issued by the Government of India).
18. Thus, every employee is having a right of resignation but Technical Resignation is the discretion of an employer. The resignation is considered technical if the competent authority has allowed the application to be forwarded through the proper channel/permission. But, in the present case, no permission was granted or, in other words, it was specifically rejected. Hence, the judgment of Sanjay Jain, supra, is of little assistance to the applicant.
kavya shree k
CAT,
kavya shreeBangalore
k 2025.11.12
13:53:02
+05'30'
16
OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
19. In Ram Mehar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (CWP No. 35184/2019 (O&M), DD: 21.01.2025), the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, considering the grievance of the employees therein, that the resignation submitted by them in order to join the State of Punjab on the post of Clerk while working on the post of Clerk in various Respective Session Divisions in pursuance to Advertisement dated 24.09.2016 not being treated as a technical resignation and rather treated as a simple resignation has categorically observed at Para 22 that the petitioners therein gave the information before participating in the selection process in pursuant to the Advertisement dated 01.09.2016. It is also a conceded fact that the competent authority in the Respective Session Divisions allowed most of the petitioners to participate in the written examination/counselling with the condition that they will have to submit the Technical Resignation in case they are selected. The objection taken by the respondents therein to deny the benefit of Technical Resignation was that the information was delayed which will extinguish the rights of the petitioners therein, to claim the benefit of Technical Resignation. Post facto sanction was given for submitting the application to some of the applicants. Reliance has been placed on the judgment kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ankur Sharma vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (CWP No. 11810/2019, DD: 30.09.2024), and Vikas Sandhu vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and Ors. (CWP No. 21498/2024, DD: 09.01.2025). In Ankur Sharma, supra, the petitioner therein applied for the post of Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Fazilka with the Subordinate Service Selection Board, Punjab prior to his appointment in the Transport Department. The petitioner therein, not serving the department of transport at the relevant time i.e., on the date of application for the post of Clerk, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the petitioner therein, had full right to compete for the post in question and no permission was required for the same but the applicant in the present case was working with the respondent CSB at the time of filing the application for the subject post. Hence, this decision is distinguishable.
20. Similarly, the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 98/2024 in Rasujit Chongder vs Central Silk Board is distinguishable since the applicant therein, was on probation and the terms of provisional offer of appointment order provided for termination at any time by one month's notice in writing given kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE either by employee to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the employee, subject to other terms and conditions prescribed under government instructions. Moreover, no adjudication was made on the aspect of technical resignation. The issue was not akin to technical resignation, the subject matter of this OA. This Tribunal has observed that the other ground of acute shortage of staff was not disclosed in the rejection order of NOC or in the impugned order therein. It was for the first time in the reply statement the said ground was taken. In that context, it was held that it is well-settled that the validity of the impugned order must be judged by the reasons so mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons stated in the reply statement, placing reliance on Paras Khuttan vs. GAIL India Ltd & another, [LPA 285/2021 (DD: 08.09.2022)].
21. In the recent judgment in Vikas Sandhu vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2025 (5) SLR 898, while considering the aspect of technical resignation, it has been observed thus:
"9. With regard to the declining of the grant of technical resignation so as to join the new post of Clerk with the PGI, the only objection taken is that the petitioner never participated in kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the selection process with the permission of the District and Sessions Judge hence, question of grant of permission to join the said post does not arise. The said argument is to be decided keeping in view the order Annexure P-3 attached with the petition by the petitioner. The order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure P-3), by which the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal gave him the permission to participate is as under:-
"As desired by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide order dated 10.07.2023, you are requested to inform Shri Vikas Sandhu, Additional Ahlmad of your Court that he has been granted permission to apply for the posts of Research Associate and Lower Division Clerk, on direct recruitment basis, advertised by PGIMER, Chandigarh, vide Advt.
No.PGI/RC/035/2023/1676 dated 09.06.2023, subject to the condition that in the event of his selection, he will resign from the post holding in this department and would be governed as per rules/instructions issued by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016."
10. Though, it has been mentioned in the letter that the petitioner will have to resign from the post in case, he is selected but, it can be safely said that the petitioner participated for the post of clerk in PGI with the due approval of the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal. Once, the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal is the appointing authority of the petitioner, and the permission was granted to compete for the selection process, it cannot be said that the petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of clerk is without following the due process or without the permission of existing employer. Once, the petitioner participated with the permission of the appointing authority for the post of clerk in the PGI, on being selected, the petitioner is only required to submit a technical resignation so as to join the newly selected post. The petitioner cannot be asked to resign simply. Rather, the resignation has to be on the terms that the petitioner intends to join his new post kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE with the PGI, which technical resignation needs to be accepted. The technical resignation will only give a right to the petitioner to claim certain benefits from PGI authorities in case the same are admissible according to the rules governing the service with the PGI. Hence, the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal is directed to accept the resignation submitted by the petitioner to join the new post on which he has been selected with the PGI authorities which will be treated as a technical resignation and not simple resignation."
This judgment lays down legal principle inasmuch as mandatory requirement of permission of the Appointing Authority for participating in the recruitment process of a new post to seek the technical resignation.
22. Thus, it is clear that had the respondent not denied the applicant to submit his application for the subject post vide communication dated 19.03.2024 the effect would have been different. Despite the clear communication issued to the applicant by the competent authority dated 19.03.2024 declining his request for issuance of NOC and Experience Certificate, citing the reason of acute shortage of scientific personnel, the applicant's conduct in proceeding with the submission of the application amounts to a conscious disregard of official instructions and reflects of violation of administrative discipline thereby making the Technical kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Resignation aspect more hard and complex. Technical Resignation is not unilateral decision of an employee, it is subject to acceptance by the competent authority i.e., a discretion vested with the competent authority.
23. In my considered view, no detailed reasons are required to be mentioned in the rejection order of the Technical Resignation since no permission was granted earlier and the reason assigned that there is shortage of scientific personnel is suffice unless held to be imaginary or incorrect. Annexure-R2 would reveal that the cadre of scientists in CSB is facing acute shortage. In terms of Annexure- R2, sanctioned strength is 811, out of which only 511 posts are filled and 300 posts remains vacant amounting to a vacancy rate of 37%. If the entire cadre strength is considered, the plea raised by the Board regarding the shortage of staff cannot be considered as an imaginary or wrong assessment. It is only in the circumstances where the department has granted permission earlier and thereafter denied to accept the Technical Resignation, the detailed reasons are required to be mentioned in the order.
24. It is well-settled that in disciplinary proceedings if the Disciplinary Authority concurs with the Inquiry Report, no further kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE reasons are warranted, but if he disagrees with the Inquiry Report, certainly recording of reasons is necessary. Similarly, in the case of Technical Resignation, if the employer at the initial stage of submitting the application for the post has declined to grant NOC, no detailed reasons are warranted subsequently, notwithstanding the conditions for submitting the application with NOC or without NOC by the employee. Any further action of the employee ignoring the said view is at the risk of the employee. The basis/foundation for Technical Resignation is submitting an application for the post qualified/competent. If the foundation is built against the decision of the employer, further edifice i.e., actions built upon such weak foundation, may collapse. Denial of permission/granting NOC at the initial stage itself would indicate the mind of the employer inasmuch as facing shortage of scientific personnel in the Board. No approval was granted for the applicant to appear for the interview as in the Casual Leave, the reason assigned was on personal ground. Hence, it cannot be construed that the Technical Resignation was rejected without any basis. It is reiterated that proper permission is sine qua non for technical resignation.
kavya shree k
CAT,
kavya shreeBangalore
k 2025.11.12
13:53:02
+05'30'
23
OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
25. As regards the 'public interest', it is apt to refer to the relevant portion of para 3 of the OM dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure- R1), which reads thus:
"a. xxxxx
b. Applications from permanent Government servants - Both
permanent non-scientific and non-technical employees as well as permanent scientific and technical employees could be given four opportunities in a year to apply for outside posts, except where withholding of any application is considered by the competent authority to be justified in the public interest. A permanent Government servant cannot justly complain of hardship or harsh treatment if his application for any other post or employment is withheld. c. Applications of Government servants who have been given some technical training at Government expenses after commencement of service - Such Government servant cannot justifiably complain of hardship if he is not allowed to capitalize the special qualifications so gained by seeking other better employment. Withholding of application in such a case is therefore justifiable.
d xxxxx
e xxxxx"
(emphasis supplied)
26. This OM refers to public interest in general, not with technical resignation in particular. On interpretation of the term 'public interest', though I agree with the conclusion of the Hon'ble Administrative Member that what 'public interest' would mean at the set of circumstances, is subjective satisfaction of the CSB and kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE cannot be quantified, I find no reasons to disagree with the view expressed by the Hon'ble Judicial Member that only pay scale being higher, the applicant wants to join the new post which is his self financial interest. Order dated 19.03.2024 issued by the respondent Board rejecting the request of the applicant for issuance of NOC and Experience Certificate for submitting the application for the post of Associate Professor in UAS on the ground of shortage of scientific personnel was not challenged by the applicant as not in the public interest immediately and he proceeded further without proper permission. Shortage of scientific personnel could be considered as an exigency of public service. Given the circumstances, clauses (b) and (c) of Annexure-R1, supra, supports the employer in rejecting the claim of the applicant for Technical Resignation, the same being the discretion of the employer albeit resignation is the right of an employee.
27. It is significant to note that during the pendency of this OA before this Tribunal, the applicant has filed an application dated 21.07.2025 submitting that the last date for joining the University after the final extension is 23.07.2025, failing which his appointment will be cancelled. Accordingly, he requested for relief kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE from the post of Scientist-D in the Board with effect from 22.07.2025, subject to the outcome of OA No. 244/2025 pending before this Tribunal. Consequent to that, Board has issued the order dated 22.07.2025 categorically making it clear that the competent authority has accepted the applicant's resignation from the post of Scientist-D at CSB with effect from 22.07.2025 without any benefits on his own request. Accordingly, the applicant has been relieved from the post of Scientist-D at CSB on 22.07.2025 (A/N). Thus, the applicant's resignation (normal/simple) which is his right has been accepted and he has been relieved.
28. For the reasons aforesaid, no exception can be found with the impugned orders. Hence, OA deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, OA stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(JUSTICE S. SUJATHA) MEMBER (J) /ksk/ kavya shree k CAT, kavya shreeBangalore k 2025.11.12 13:53:02 +05'30' 1 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00244/2025 ORDER RESERVED ON: 14.07.2025 DATE OF ORDER: 26.08.2025 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A) Dr. Manjunatha G.R, S/o Rangappa G.B, Aged about 37 years, Scientist-D, (Agricultural Statistics), RCS Division, Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, Bengaluru, R/at. Gyarehalli (Village), Muthagadur (Post), Holalkere (Taluk), Chitradurga (Dist.), Karnataka - 577 518 Mobile: 9831878341. ... Applicant (By Advocate Shri S.K. Pal) Vs. Central Silk Board, (Established by the Government of India And Ministry of Textiles is an Administrative Ministry) CSB Complex, BTM Layout, Madiwala, Bangalore - 560 068.
Rept. by its Member Secretary. ...Respondents (By Shri N. Amaresh, Senior Panel Counsel.) 2 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE ORDER PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. It is my pleasure to get the benefit of reading the judgment written by brother Member Shri Santosh Mehra, (Administrative Member), but I respectfully disagree with the reasoning and result. Therefore, I want to write something more.
2. The facts and pleadings in detail are already mentioned in the judgment written by learned Member (A). Therefore, I will mention only relevant facts related to my conclusion.
3. It appears that the applicant was appointed upon the post of "Scientist-B" in Central Silk Board by order dated 14.10.2015 (Annexure - A2). In para 3 of the appointment letter, it was the condition that the service may be terminated by serving one month's notice from either side. It was also mentioned in the appointment letter that the service of applicant shall be governed by the Rules framed under the "Central Silk Board Act, 1948".
4. By order dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure - A4), the applicant was promoted and granted in-situ promotion from "Scientist-B" to "Scientist-C" w.e.f. 01.07.2019. Thereafter, the respondents transferred the applicant upon his request at Bangalore vide order Annexure - A5. Thereafter, the applicant 3 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE was promoted as per flexible complementing scheme and took charge of in-situ promotion post of "Scientist-D" w.e.f.
06.05.2024 vide Annexure - A6.
5. A notification Annexure - A7 dated 24.02.2024 was issued by the "University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore"
inviting the applications for several posts including the post of "Associate Professor" in the subject of "Agricultural Statistics". As per Instruction No.12 of the aforesaid notification Annexure-A7, the applicant submitted the letter Annexure-A8 on 04.03.2024. In the aforesaid letter, he mentioned that the post of Associate Professor (Agricultural Statistics) with Level 13 A has been advertised and the last date is 26.03.2024. Therefore, in order to avoid any delay, an advance copy along with necessary documents for the said post will be submitted. It was also mentioned that the applicant is legible for the post therefore; he requested to issue the NOC and experience certificate on or before 24.03.2024.
6. In response to the aforesaid letter Annexure - A8, before the last date of submission of the application, the respondents issued the letter dated 19.03.2024 (page 3 of Annexure-A1). In the aforesaid letter, the respondents informed the applicant:-
" I am directed to refer to your application dated 04/03/2024 on the above subject, it is to inform that since CSB is facing shortage of Scientific personnel, 4 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the Competent Authority has not agreed to issue No Objection Certificate and Experience Certificate for applying for the post of Associate Professor (Agricultural Statistics) in University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore."
7. Therefore, it appears that before the last date for submission of the application, the permission was denied by the respondents upon the ground that the establishment is facing shortage of scientific personnel. It is submitted by the applicant that the aforesaid application Annexure - A8 was submitted by him in the light of Condition No.12 & 13 of the advertised Annexure - A7. In the Instruction Nos. 12 & 13, it has been stated:-
"12. Candidates already in service (Government / Quasi Government) should submit their applications through proper channel. Such of those Candidates who are in service, if are anticipating delay in sending their applications through proper channel, may submit advance copy of the application along with photocopy of the application fee and duly attested relevant/ supporting documents/credentials.
If the applicant is a permanent employee in any Government Department or any other State Government or Central Government or Quasi Government or any other University and made application without consent of the Head of the Department or of the Government or Head of the University / Institution, as the case may be, under which he / she was an employee have to produce NOC at the time of attending written Test (for Assistant Professor) & at the time of interview (for Associate Professor) if not, he / she will not be eligible for appointment for any post notified.5
OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
13. In-service/Outside employee (other than UAS- B) candidates should submit their applications through their Controlling Officer / Employer. They should also ensure that the applications should reach the University on or before the last date prescribed. In case of delay in sending the application through proper channel is anticipated, an advance copy of the application should be sent within the last date prescribed.
Further, they should ensure that their confidential reports of preceding five years (from the year of this application) shall reach the University from their employer as indicated in the forwardal certificate. However, the application through proper channel should reach the University not later than 15 days from the last date prescribed for submission of application."
8. It is submitted by the applicant counsel that a notification of addendum for the same direct recruitment was released on 13.03.2024 which is Annexure - A9 and as per the aforesaid addendum, no prior permission was required and the applicant was competent to submit his application directly. It appears from the aforesaid addendum dated 13.03.2024 (Annexure - A9) that the Rule 11 of the "Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977" has been amended. According to aforesaid rule, the University also amended the instruction No.13 (a) as under:-
"13 (a) A Government servant applying for selection to any service or post shall submit his application directly to the selecting Authority. As soon as his selection is notified, he shall intimate the fact of his selection to the head of the department in which he is working and seek issue of no-objection certificate to 6 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE accept appointment to the post for which he is selected."
9. The University adopted the amendment made by the Karnataka State Government in Rule 11 of the "Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977". But the aforesaid rules are not applicable to the applicant because the applicant was not the employee of Karnataka State Government. He was the employee of Central Silk Board. The Central Silk Board is a statutory body constituted under the "Central Silk Board Act, 1948" and fully governed and controlled by the Central Government. As per Section 11 of CSB Act, 1948, all acts and decisions of the Board are subject to the control of the Central Government which has the authority to cancel, suspend or modify any action or order of the Board. Central Government alone is empowered to frame rules relating to the recruitment, pay, allowances, leave and other conditions of service of the employee of the Board. Because the applicant was the employee of Central Silk Board, therefore, he was governed by the rules and administrative control of the Central Government and not by the State Government. The condition was also mentioned in the appointment order of the applicant. As per aforesaid rules, the applicant was not empowered to submit the application directly without obtaining the NOC. 7
OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
10. It appears from the record that the applicant received call letter for the interview on 16.10.2024 (Annexure - A12). He submitted an application on 24.10.2024 for permission to participate in the interview. The same was also rejected in the light of previous order vide letter dated 30.10.2024 (pg 2 of Annexure - A1). It was informed by the aforesaid letter that:-
" I am directed to refer to your application dated 24/10/2024 on the above subject, it is to inform that since CSB is facing shortage of Scientific personnel, the Competent Authority has not agreed for grant of permission to attend interview for the post of Associate Professor (Agricultural Statistics) in University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore."
11. Therefore, it appears that because the permission was denied initially at the time of submitting the application, therefore, the permission to participate in the interview was also not given to the applicant. But the applicant appeared in the interview after taking the leave. It appears from the leave application Annexure A-14, that the applicant did not mention the reason of leave for participating in the "interview". He mentioned the reason as "personal ground". It means, he concealed the fact for participating in the interview after denial by the department.
12. Therefore, when the applicant submitted the "technical resignation" after getting the selection for the new post, the 8 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE department denied the aforesaid request vide order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure - A1). In the aforesaid letter, the respondents intimated the applicant:-
"Sub: Submission of Technical Resignation from the post of Scientist-D -
Appointment as Associate Professor, UAS- GKVK, Bengaluru - reg.
**** I am directed to refer to your letter dated 05-05- 2025 on the above subject and to inform that the Competent Authority did not agree to your earlier requests for issue of No Objection Certificate for submission of application / Interview for the post of Associate Professor [Agricultural Statistics], UAS- GKVK, Bengaluru considering the shortage of Scientific personnel in CSB, which was intimated to you vide C.O. letter dated 19-03-2024 & 30-10-2024. Accordingly, the Competent Authority has not agreed to issue No Objection Certificate and acceptance of Technical Resignation.
This issues with the approval of the Member Secretary."
13. The applicant placed the reliance upon the judgment dated 22.03.2024 Annexure - A18, passed by Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 98/2024 titled Rasujit Chongder vs. Central Silk Board (The aforesaid judgment has been quoted by my learned brother in his judgment in para 6 and again in para
37). In my view, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the case of the applicant. It appears that the aforesaid applicant was on probation. It also appears from para 10 that the applicant submitted the resignation and after 30 days, he was entitled to get 9 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the relieving letter. From para 10 and 11, it is specifically transpired that the case was not related to the technical resignation. In para 14, the Court also mentioned the difference between probationer and the employee serving. Therefore, in the aforesaid case, the relief was granted to the applicant in relation to the resignation because 30 days have been passed and it was the condition of the probation that upon serving a notice of one month from any side, the services may be terminated.
14. Another judgment relied by the applicant is Ankur Sharma vs. State of Punjab & others [CWP No. 11810/2019 (O&M)] decided on 30.09.2024 by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana (paras of the aforesaid judgment also quoted by my learned Member in para 8). It appears from the aforesaid judgment that before joining the department, the applicant had already applied to another post. In the aforesaid situation, the Court came to the conclusion that any permission was not required from the new Department in which the applicant was serving.
15. Another judgment Ram Mehar Singh & anr. vs. State of Punjab & others [CWP 35184/2019 (O&M)] decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 21.01.2025 (aforesaid judgment also quoted in para 9 and again in para 35 of the judgment by my learned brother). It appears from the reading 10 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE of the aforesaid judgment that in the aforesaid case, the reliance was placed upon Ankur Sharma case (supra) in which the applicant had applied to another post before joining the department. In addition, it is also found that in the aforesaid case, the denial of the permission to appear was never brought to the notice of the applicant up to the date of examination and the same was brought to the notice after the examination was held. In the aforesaid situation, the relief was granted. But in the present case, the position is different. The permission was initially denied before the last date of submission of the application. The applicant did not challenge the aforesaid order at the proper time. Even he did not submit any application before the department for re- consideration of the aforesaid request. In the aforesaid situation, the cases of Ankur Sharma (supra) & Ram Mehar Singh (supra) are not applicable in the case of applicant.
16. The reliance was also placed upon the case of Sanjay Jain vs. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7822/2011 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.11.2018 (mentioned in para 34 of the judgment written by my learned Member). The aforesaid judgment says that "Resignation" is the right of the applicant. There is not disputed about the legal position. Definitely, resignation is the right of 11 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE applicant. He can submit the resignation at any time in the entire period of service by following the prescribed rules in this regard related to the period or the deposition of the pay, etc. But in case of "Technical resignation", the position is different. Every employee having the right to submit the "Resignation" but not having any vested right to submit the "Technical resignation". The technical resignation can be accepted only in the condition when at the time of submitting the application to another post in different department, the employee followed the rules and regulations in this regard. If the employee submitted his application through proper channel with the No Objection Certificate and thereafter appear in the examination, then his technical resignation cannot be denied. But in the present case, any permission was not granted. Therefore, the respondents were having the right to deny accepting the technical resignation.
17. The respondents mentioned the reasons for not granting the permission in the letter. As per respondents, there is shortage of scientific personnel. No detailed reasons are required to mention in the rejection order of the technical resignation because any permission was not granted earlier. If the department granted any permission earlier and thereafter denied to accept the technical resignation, in that condition, the detailed reasons are required to be mentioned in the order. In the present 12 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE situation, Annexure - A1 having sufficient information including the reason of denial. In letters dated 19.03.2024, 30.10.2024 and 13.05.2025, the same reasons are mentioned.
18. The reason of denial is also justified by the respondents. The respondents showed the present position of the posts in the department. My learned brother mentioned the aforesaid detail in para 31 (page 33 of the judgment). According to the aforesaid statement (Annexure - R2), the scientist in CSB are in acute shortage. The sanctioned strength is 811, out of which only 511 posts are filled and 300 posts remains vacant amounting to a vacancy rate of 37 %. The detailed chart of the post cannot be taken into consideration in reference to single or particular post only. Entire cadre strength should be seen, because if the upper post is vacant then promotion will be granted from the lower post and after the vacancy arises in the said lower post then the post will be filled by recruitment. In the present case, the applicant got the promotion and he was promoted to the post of Scientist- D, Level 12 of the pay matrix Rs.78800-209200 from the post of Scientist-C. On promotion of Scientist from one grade to next higher grade the post shall stand upgraded automatically as personnel to the scientist concerned and after superannuation, the post shall revert back to the grade. The aforesaid remark has been mentioned in Annexure - R2. Therefore, looking to the 13 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE aforesaid remark, the total strength should be seen not the individual post of Scientist-D. Hence, it can be said that the decision of denial by the respondents is based upon the appropriate consideration of the present post structure. The respondents were having the discretion and they did not apply their discretion in arbitrary manner, therefore they cannot be compelled to accept the technical resignation.
19. As far as public interest is concerned, then in my view, it cannot be said that the acceptance of technical resignation of the applicant having any public interest. On the other side, the applicant was appointed to the post of Scientist and the department gave proper trainings and proper promotions, etc. and spent money from the public fund. The applicant applied to the post of the Associate Professor. For the aforesaid post, the experience of present post of Scientist is not helpful. Only pay scale is higher therefore, the applicant wants to join the new post. Hence, prima facie, it can be said that the interest of applicant (financial) is involved not the public interest. In that situation, if the applicant wants to join, then he is free to file the regular resignation letter by following the instructions regarding the period or the deposition of the pay, etc. Normal resignation is the right of applicant and respondents cannot refuse. But granting 14 OA.No.170/00244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the permission of technical resignation is the entire discretion of the concerned department.
20. In the aforesaid situation, the OA is liable to be dismissed, therefore, dismissed.
(Separate judgment written) Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
1 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00244/2025
ORDER RESERVED : 14.07.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 26.08.2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA ...MEMBER(J) HON'BLE MR.SANTOSH MEHRA ...MEMBER(A) Dr.Manjunatha G.R., S/o Rangappa G.B., Aged about 37 years, Scientist-D, (Agricultural Statistics), RCS Division, Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, Bengaluru. R/at. Gyarehalli (Village), Muthagadur (Post), Holalkere (Taluk), Chitradurga (Dist.), Karnataka-577518. ...Applicant (By Advocate, Shri S.K.Pal) Vs.
1. The Central Silk Board, (Established by the Government of India And Ministry of Textiles is an Administrative Ministry), CSB Complex, BTM Layout, Madiwala, Bangalore-560068.
Rept. By its Member Secretary. ...Respondents (By Advocate, Shri N.Amaresh) 2 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ............................. Member(A) In this OA, the applicant has asked for the following reliefs:
"A. Issue writ, writs in the nature of direction to setting aside the Office letter No. CSB 15(5)/2016-ES.I, dated 13.05.2025 together with letter dated 19.03.2024 and 04.11.2024 vide ANNEXURE- A1(colly) issued by Central Silk Board with the direction to issue required NOC and the relieving letter forthwith to the applicant so that he can proceed to join the duties on and from 06.06.2025; and/or B. Any other order or orders that this court may deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. The applicant submits that on his appointment to Central Silk Board (CSB) on 14.10.2015, he joined as Scientist 'B' on 13.11.2015. He completed his probationary period on 22.03.2017 and based on MFSC result declared on 03.06.2019, he was granted in-situ promotion from Scientist 'B' to Scientist 'C' with effect from 01.07.2019. Subsequently, on his request vide order dated 3 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 13.05.2021 he was transferred from CSRTI, Berhampore to CSB, Bengaluru.
3. The applicant further submits that under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS), he was promoted as Scientist 'D' on 06.05.2024. Around two months prior to his promotion, the applicant applied for the post of Associate Professor of Agricultural Statistics in Level-13A (Rs.1,31,400-2,17,100) in the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Bangalore, in response to their notification dated 24.02.2024. He had applied through proper channel and had requested the respondents for No Objection Certificate (NOC) in this regard. As a matter of abundant caution, though the Addendum for the Recruitment Notification stated that a Government servant could apply for the post directly and the requirement for NOC would arise only on notification of selection, he still applied for the NOC to the CSB
4. The applicant further submits that the Respondent, i.e., CSB rejected his request for NOC vide letter dated 19.03.2024 and hence vide letter dated 20.03.2024, he duly informed the CSB that he was 4 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH continuing with the process as no NOC was required at that stage. The applicant on receipt of interview call letter dated 16.10.2024 (received on 21.10.2024) requested for permission to attend the interview scheduled on 30.10.2024, but did not receive any intimation/permission from the CSB till the date of interview. The applicant attended the scheduled interview on 30.10.2024 for which he had taken casual leave. Subsequently, he received a letter on 04.11.2024 dated 30.10.2024 from CSB stating that he was not granted permission to attend the interview for the said post.
5. The applicant further submits that he received the Selection Order dated 24.04.2025 for the post of Assistant Professor on 01.05.2025, wherein he was asked to join on or before 23.05.2025. He promptly submitted his Technical Resignation from the post of Scientist 'D' in CSB on 05.05.2025 and requested for issuance of both NOC and Relieving Order. He further requested the UAS on 08.05.2025 for extension of date of joining by one month. On 13.05.2025, he received a letter from CSB rejecting his request for issue of NOC and acceptance of Technical Resignation.
5 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
6. The applicant submits that in several judgments by this Hon'ble Tribunal and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that resignation is the matter of right for an employee. He further states that since he had not signed any Security or Surety Bond with the CSB, his request for technical resignation could not be rejected. In this regard he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Jain vs. National Aviation Company of India Limited in Civil Appeal No.7822/2011 (DD: 01.11.2018) and also on the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Rasujit Chongder vs. Central Silk Board in OA No.170/00098/2024 (DD: 22.03.2024). The relevant paras in the case of Sanjay Jain supra, are as follows:
"10 Clause 2 of Standing Order 18 provides that in case of resignation is with immediate effect or any time before the expiry of notice period, acceptance of resignation is required. Acceptance is not required in case a notice has been given of 30 days. It is right of a workman to serve and resignation tendered by him shall be effective or operative with exception, if at the time 6 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH when such resignation is tendered, disciplinary action is pending against him or is intended or proposed to be taken against him by the appropriate authority, unless the company decides to accept the resignation.
11. In our opinion, from a bare reading of the provisions contained in Standing order 18, it is crystal clear that a permanent employee has a right to resign from the services by giving a notice of the period of 30 days as prescribed under Standing Order 17, and is entitled to obtain certificate from the employer for the period services have been rendered."
The relevant paras in the case of Rasujit Chongder supra, are as follows:
"14. In the case of Paras Khuttan vs. GAIL India Ltd & another, [LPA 285/2021 (DD: 08.09.2022)], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed thus:
"37. The Order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the learned Single Judge has not considered the distinction between a "probationer" and an "employee" serving GAIL India Ltd. The general terms and conditions of service rules define an "employee" as well as a "probationer". They are two distinct
7 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH categories. Rule 8.2 of the Rules in respect of E-O level employees provides for termination of services by 3 month's notice or pay in lieu thereof by either side. Meaning thereby, only in case of employees, the mandatory requirement of serving 3 months notice or pay in lieu thereof is in existence. Such a condition is not in existence in respect of probationer. The services of a probationer as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order can be terminated at any point of time without any notice. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, once the employer is having a right to terminate the probationer without issuing any notice or without granting any salary in lieu of notice, the same has to be made applicable in case the probationer wants to leave the job and, therefore, to that extent, the learned Single Judge has erred in law and on facts in treating the probationer and regular employee at par in the matter of resignation."
15. Resignation is a matter of right to an employee. The employee cannot be forced to serve if he is not willing unless there is some stipulation in the Rules or in the terms of appointment or any disciplinary proceeding is pending which is sought to be avoided by resigning from the service. This view is fortified by the law enunciated by The Hon'ble Apex 8 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Court in the case of Sanjay Jain vs National Aviation Company of India Limited in Civil Appeal No. 7822/2011 (DD: 01.11.2018).
16. For the reasons aforesaid, we find merit in the OA. The impugned order 31.01.2024 (Annexure-A1) suffers from arbitrariness and is illegal. Hence, the same deserves to be set aside.
17. Resultantly, the memorandum dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure-A1) issued by the respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to relieve the applicant from the post of Scientist-B (Post-Cocoon) in an expedite manner, in any event, on or before 31.03.2024. OA stands disposed of, in terms of above."
7. The applicant further points out that the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India in its OM dated 30.07.2001 had recommended sanctioning FCS to the Scientist in CSB and affiliated institutions upto the level of Scientist 'F'. The promotions were being given only up to Level-D, which is already the level at which the applicant has been working. He states that despite the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 allowing 16 Scientists to be promoted upto Scientist 'F' and the consent order 9 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 14.06.2019 in OA No.170/1057- 1275/2018, the CSB has been denying promotion up to Scientist 'F; citing revised Recruitment Rules, 2013. He avers that in contrast to promotional avenues upto just Level-D available in CSB at which he was already presently working, in UAS, the promotional avenues were upto Level-F and it was his constitutional right to pursue his career progress accordingly. He reiterates that the CSB policy have no promotional avenues beyond Level-D and when an opportunity presented itself for better promotional avenue, he has chosen to avail the same which is well within the ambit of the laid down law and procedures. The applicant argues that his request for issue of NOC and acceptance of technical resignation have been wrongly and illegally rejected on the grounds of shortage of Scientific personnel. According to him, this is incorrect as the CSB is in the process of undertaking recruitment of Scientists and in any case there were adequate number of Scientist at Level-D at which he was working.
8. Alleging discrimination, the applicant gives example of one Shri Dasharath Alodiya, who was allowed in June 2023 to appear 10 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH for selection in another organisation and subsequently relieved also. He says that on Principles of Parity, his Technical Resignation should also have been accepted. He places reliance on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ankur Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others [CWP No.11810/2019 (O&M) (DD:30.09.2024]. The relevant paras are as follows:
"9. The other argument, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-State is that the petitioner competed for the post after joining the post of Clerk in the Transport Department. Once, the petitioner has already applied for the post, for mere competition for the post in question, no permission is required from the Transport Department concerned. No rules envisage that for any post, for which an employee has already applied for, permission is to be taken for competing for the same. In the absence of any Rule shown to the Court, the argument being raised by the respondent-State that the petitioner could not have competed for the post of Clerk to be appointed in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Fazilka cannot be accepted.
10. Further, the petitioner submitted the resignation and he was forced to deposit one month salary. The petitioner only submitted the resignation so as to join another post with the Government of Punjab. Once, the petitioner was only shifting from 11 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH one Department to another Department of the Govt. of Punjab, keeping in view the rules governing the service, the Transport Department was required to give the benefit of technical resignation to the petitioner.
11. In fact, in the present case, the petitioner has been discriminated against. It may be noticed that there were two employees who were working in the Transport Department, one petitioner and one Pardeep Verma. Both of them have competed for the post of Clerk subsequently to their appointment in the Transport Department and Pardeep Verma was allowed the technical resignation by the Department of Transport so as to join
- Department. Nothing has come on record as to why, the same benefit has not been given to the petitioner. This shows that there was a pick and choose Policy adopted by the respondents between the petitioner as well as Pardeep Verma. The petitioner has been discriminated against by the respondents for the reasons best known to them and still, the respondents are defending their action by filing a reply to the present writ petition so that the petitioner is not able to get the benefit which the Department itself has extended to Pardeep Verma.
12. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is allowed. Keeping in view Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I Part-I, as the petitioner has joined a Government Department i.e. Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Fazilka after rendering 12 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH service with the Department of Transport, the service rendered in the Transport Department be treated as a valid service to be given benefit to the petitioner as and where required for all intents and purposes. Let the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Fazilka treat the petitioner's transfer to the said Department having been done on the basis of the technical resignation so as to grant the benefit admissible to the petitioner under Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I Part-I qua the service rendered by the petitioner in Transport Department, Punjab. Let this order be complied with by the respondents.
13. Qua the pay which has been deducted while accepting the resignation of the petitioner, the Department of Transport is directed to refund the same and to treat the same as a technical resignation for all intents and purposes. Let this order be complied with by the Department of Transport within a period of four weeks of the receipt of copy of this order."
9. The applicant asserts saying that the orders of CSB dated 19.03.2024, 30.10.2024 and 13.05.2025 rejecting NOC and his Technical Resignation were illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional and deserves to be quashed. He further requests that direction should be issued to the CSB to issue the required NOC and to accept his technical resignation and give him Relieving Letter. In support of 13 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH his contentions, he further invites our attention to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ram Mehar Singh and another vis. State of Punjab and others and connected cases [CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) (DD: 21.01.2025]. The relevant paras are as follows:
9. The said permission to grant the technical resignation has been denied to the petitioner(s) and their resignations have been treated as a normal resignation from the service, which is causing prejudice to the petitioner(s), which grievance has been raised before this Court in the present petition.
......................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................
28. ................. the technical resignation is to be submitted so that an employee can claim the benefit of continuity in service and benefit of protection of pay in their new Department, ............................................................................ ........................................................................................................
30. With regard to the assertion of the respondent counsel appearing on behalf of the Respective Session Divisions in CWP No.10610 of 2020 and CWP No.12900 of 14 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 2020, where it has been mentioned that the prayer for the appearing in the written examination/counselling was denied to the petitioners therein but they still appeared for the written examination/counselling hence, they cannot claim the benefit of technical resignation, it may be noticed that in CWP No.10610 of 2020, the petitioner therein sought permission to appear in the counselling/written examination on 01.06.2019 which was scheduled to be held on 10.06.2019. The declining of the permission to appear was never brought to his notice upto the date of the examination and the same was brought to his notice after the examination was held. Hence, in the said case also, once the petitioner in CWP No.10610 of 2020 never knew that his request to appear in the examination has been declined and he appeared in good faith, it cannot be said that the petitioner appeared despite rejection of his claim. It can be said that the candidate appeared without the permission of the same hence, he is to be treated similar to the candidates, who appeared in the examination without permission but were later on granted the ex-post facto permission so as to appear and compete for the post of Clerk in pursuance to advertisement dated 01.09.2016..
15 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
31. Further, the said issue qua the grant of technical resignation is no longer res integra, the same has already been decided by this Court more 11 of 13 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666 CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases than once. While deciding CWP No.11810 of 2019 titled "Ankur Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and ors.", dated 30.09.2024, the similar issue arose, which has been decided in the favour of the candidate so as to treat his resignation as technical resignation.
32. Learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to rebut the said fact that the claim of the petitioner(s) is similar to that of Ankur Sharma's case (supra) hence, the said judgment applies upon the claim of the petitioner(s) to their benefit.
33. Further, the similar issue arose qua the denial of the technical resignation by the respective Session Divisions, which issue was decided by this Court while deciding CWP No.21498 of 2024 titled "Vikas Sandhu Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and ors.", dated 09.01.2025, wherein also, on the similar issue, where the benefit of technical resignation was being denied only on the ground that the candidate never competed with the permission of District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, the benefit was allowed in favour of the employee concerned wherein, the said employee was given permission to participate in the subsequent 16 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH selection process by the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal. There also, before selection, the said benefit to participate in the selection process had been given to almost all the petitioner(s). That being so, the claim of the petitioner(s) is also covered by the judgment in Vikas Sandhu's case (supra).
34. Keeping in view the above, the impugned orders of denying the benefit of technical resignation to the petitioner(s) by various respective Session Divisions are accordingly set aside.
35. The resignation submitted by the petitioner(s) will be treated as technical resignation for all intents and purposes. The State of Punjab will be free to decide the claim of the petitioner(s) in accordance with the law keeping in view the fact that the resignation submitted by the petitioner(s) are technical resignations.
36. The present bunch of petitions are allowed in above terms.
37. Any claim raised by the petitioner(s) with the State of Punjab for the grant of any benefit keeping in view the fact that their resignations should be treated as a technical resignation, be decided by the State of Punjab as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the receipt of copy of this order."
17 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
10. The applicant points out that the contention of the CSB that there is shortage of scientist as grounds for refusing NOC is wrong. He says that these grounds were furnished as an afterthought to justify the arbitrary and prejudiced stand taken by CSB. In this regard, he refers to Annexure R2 , furnished by the CSB , according to which there was zero vacancy of Scientists at his Level-D. He avers that CSB has failed to explain the public interest which was involved , which supposedly formed the very basis of the impugned orders. In this regard, he invites our attention to para 2a & b of OM dated 24 November 2022 which reads as follows :
"No.DOPT-1669271204071 Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel and Training ESTT.(Estt. C) ****** (Dated 24 November, 2022) OFFICE MEMORANDUM Forwarding of Application
2. INTERPRETING THE TERM 'PUBLIC INTEREST' a. The Heads of Departments should interpret the term 'public interest' strictly and subject to that consideration, the forwarding of applications should be the rule rather than an exception. Ordinarily, every employee (whether scientific and 18 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH technical or non-scientific and non-technical personnel) should be permitted to apply for an outside post even though he may be holding a permanent post.
b. No distinction need be made between applications made for posts in a Department under the Central government, Autonomous Bodies or sub-ordinate offices, posts under the State Governments, posts in Public Sector Undertakings owned wholly or partly by the Central Government or a State Government and posts in quasi-Government organizations. They should all be treated alike so far as the forwarding of applications is concerned. If, however, a Government servant desires to apply for a post in a private concern, he should submit his resignation or notice of retirement, as the case may be, before applying for private employment.
c. For this purpose, "scientific and technical personnel", may be interpreted to mean persons holding posts or belonging to services which have been declared to be scientific or technical posts or scientific or technical service."
11. He reiterates that as per the above OM the forwarding of application even for permanent employees should be the rule rather than exceptions, therefore, same has been violated in the case. In this regard he also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in 19 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Mohinder Singh Gill and another versus Chief Election Commissioner , New Delhi and others.
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought ,out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose."
12. He further points out that the circumstances under which an application cannot be forwarded, is indicated in Para-6 of the OM mentioned below and they are not applicable to him.
"6. CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE FORWARDED Application of a Government servant for appointment, whether by direct recruitment, transfer on deputation or transfer, to any other post should not be considered/ forwarded, if:
(a) (i) he is under suspension; or
(ii) disciplinary proceedings are pending against him and a charge sheet has been issued; or 20 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(iii) sanction for prosecution, where necessary has been accorded by the competent authority; or
(iv) where a prosecution sanction is not necessary, a charge-sheet has been filed in a Court of law against him for criminal prosecution.
(v) where he is undergoing a penalty -- no application should be forwarded during the currency of such penalty."
13. The applicant summarises his contentions by stating the following :
1. There have been no valid reasons given whatever in the impugned orders related to rejection of the NOC and refusal to accept his Technical Resignation.
2. The Principle of Parity has not been followed and he has been discriminated against.
3. Refusal to accept his Technical Resignation violates his Constitutional Rights !
4. There is no shortage of scientists in CSB particularly at the Level- D at which he has been working in that organisation
5. There is no departmental enquiry or disciplinary proceedings pending against him and hence refusal to accept his resignation is against the laid down rules and procedures.
21 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
14. The Counsel for the Respondents have filed the reply statement. He has submitted that the applicant, vide his letter dated 04.03.2024, sought issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to apply for the post of Associate Professor (Agricultural Statistics) at the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Bengaluru, referring to its Recruitment Notification dated 24.02.2024.
15. Due to the acute shortage of Scientific personnel In the Research cadre, particularly in Agricultural Statistics, the Competent Authority decided not to issue NOC, and the same was communicated to the Applicant through Central Office letter date 19.03.2024. The refusal was reasoned, policy-based, and within the domain of administrative discretion which was exercised bona fide.
16. The Respondent aver that the applicant's submission of application for the post of Associate Professor (Agricultural Statistics) at the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Bangalore, despite rejection of his request for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) and Experience Certificate amounts to a conscious disregard of official instructions and reflects violation of administrative discipline. The 22 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH issuance of NOC and relieving orders is not an automatic or absolute right but is subject to organizational exigencies, administrative requirements, and approval of the Competent Authority, especially in light of prevailing staff shortages adversely affecting core Research and Scientific output of CSB.
17. He submits that the Applicant's request for permission to attend the interview at UAS, GKVK, Bengaluru scheduled on 30.10.2024, was declined due to shortage of scientific staff, which was communicated to him by letter dated 30.10.2024.
18. The Respondent Counsel argues that the contention of the applicant that the action of the Central Silk Board (CSB) in not relieving him despite his willingness to serve the notice period is without statutory basis, is untenable and contrary to established Service Jurisprudence. He contends that the applicant, cannot claim an absolute right to resignation or relief, especially when he had failed to obtain the mandatory No Objection Certificate (NOC) for applying for an external post, in the light of clear refusal communicated by CSB vide letters dated 19.03.2024 and 30.10.2024 & 13.05.2025.
23 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
19. According to him, the refusal to relieve him is not arbitrary but is based on sound administrative grounds, particularly acute shortage of scientific personnel in CSB and his involvement in important ongoing research work. In this regard he draws our attention to Point 3(b) of consolidated Guidelines of DoPT vide OM dated 24.011.2022 regarding forwarding of applications for outside post which reads as follows:
"Both permanent non-scientific and non-technical employees as well as permanent scientific and technical employees could be given four opportunities in a year to apply for outside posts, except where withholding of any application is considered by the competent authority to be justified in the public interest. A permanent Government servant cannot justly complain of hardship or harsh treatment if his application for any other post or employment is withheld."
20. He avers that the acceptance of resignation and relief of Scientist-B Shri Dasharath Alodiya was purely the decision of the then Competent Authority i.e., one who was holding additional charge of 24 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Member Secretary. However, when a regular Member Secretary was appointed to CSB in October, 2023, he undertook a review of all posts including sanctioned and available strengths & vacancy position. It was brought to his notice that several important works of CSB Including Administrative functioning and Research & Development Activities were getting adversely effected due to the shortage of Administrative Staff & Scientists in CSB.
21. The learned Counsel for respondents refutes the contention that the resignation is an absolute right and states that the same has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reiterated by various Tribunals. Acceptance of Technical resignation involves considering past service and is not a matter of right. It is subject to acceptance by the Competent Authority, especially where Institutional exigencies warrant retention of services. He points out that the applicant's claim about clause 3 of appointment order 2015 dated 14.10.2015 is not correct. Clause 3 of the appointment order dated 14.10.2015 only talks about a simple resignation where the employee leaves the job by giving one month's notice. It does not cover a technical resignation, which involves moving from one 25 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH government job to another while keeping benefits like past service continuity, pension transfer, and leave encashment. In such cases, giving a No Objection Certificate (NOC) is not automatic, it depends on the needs of the organization and the decision of the Competent Authority.
22. Regarding the Director (Tech) communication dated 30.05.2025 he avers that it is an internal communication reflecting the position of specific section i.e., Research co-ordination Section and does not represent the overall manpower across the CSB. Citing statistics related to sanctioned strength & vacancy position on 01.05.2025, he argues that the cadre of Scientists in the Central Silk Board is facing acute shortage. The sanctioned strength is 811, of which 511 are filled, and 300 posts remain vacant, amounting to a vacancy rate of 37%. This is seriously impacting ongoing research and extension functions. Regarding recruitment of 122 scientist - B post, he explains that the said process is at preliminary stage and will take considerable time to materialize, including completion of DV's, interviews, selection formalities and training. The mere initiation of recruitment cannot negate - the present shortage of scientific personnel's in the Board, specially at the level of Scientist-D, 26 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH which is a promotional post requiring specialized expertise and experience.
23. Accordingly to him, the applicant as Scientist-D, is engaged in critical research functions, and his unilateral attempt to exit CSB is in violation of rules and cannot be justified merely on grounds of personal convenience or perceived career progression.
24. According to him, the absence of a signed Surety Bond does not exempt the applicant from adherence to Service Rules and the requirement of prior permission through proper channel, particularly under Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
25. The respondent further points out that in a brief period of just nine years, the applicant has been promoted twice. Moreover, his request for transfer from Bhubeneshwar to Bangalore was also favourably considered by CSB. This clearly indicates that there is no malafide on the part of CSB. The respondent also stated that the applicant, while serving in CSB, is bound by the rules and regulations of GoI , which clearly mandate that a Central Government employee must take NOC, before applying for any job outside his organisation. He states that the 27 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH applicant is bound by the rules of GoI and not that of UAS & hence, he is guilty of indisciplined behavior and violation of the Conduct Rules.
26. Responding to the contention of the applicant regarding the Doctrine of Parity/Equity, he states that every case is unique and decision is taken by the top management based on the relevant facts and circumstances as applicable to that case . The CSB has every right to carry out transfers and postings in public interest, as deemed fit and that cannot be questioned by anyone. In this regard, he reminds us of Para-3 of the OM dated 24.11.2022 already mentioned in Para-19 on page-23 (supra) and also cites the following para:
c. Applications of Government servants who have been given some technical training at Government expenses after commencement of service - Such Government servant cannot justifiably complain of hardship if he is not allowed to capitalize the special qualifications so gained by seeking other better employment. Withholding of application in such a case is therefore justifiable.
27. The respondent also points out that the judgement of this Honble bench in OA 98/ 24 dated 22 March 2024, was not applicable in this case 28 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH as the applicant in that case was a probationer & not a confirmed government employee and the Hon'ble Tribunal had directed the Respondent to accept his Resignation and not 'Technical Resignation'. He reiterates that the applicant was involved in critical projects related to coordination of R & D between specialised units of CSB and hence , his disengagement would have disrupted important projects and that would have militated against public interest. He further argues that there was absolutely no need to issue a Speaking Order by CSB & the subjective satisfaction of the top management of CSB regarding refusal for NOC and relief cannot be questioned by anybody in this regard .
28. The learned Counsel for the respondents finally concludes by stating that the decisions of the respondents in not issuing NOC and rejecting the Technical Resignation of the applicant were logical, cogent and well reasoned. The decisions were based on the ground level realities of acute shortage of specialized technical manpower and were taken, keeping in mind the organisational interests. Hence, the OA should be dismissed.
29 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
29. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsels for the applicant and respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgments of the Superior Courts, relevant sections and clauses of the departmental rules etc., which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.
30. The following facts are admitted by both the parties :
1. The applicant joint CSB as scientist B on 13.11.2015. His probation was declared on 22.03.2017. He got his first promotion from scientist B to scientist C on 01.07.2019. On his request he was transferred from Berhampur to BENGALURU in May 21. He was promoted as scientist D on 06.05.2024 .
2. The applicant is hardly 37 years old and is already working at a level ( Scientist D), beyond and above which CSB is not giving any further promotions.
3. Though the Supreme Court passed a judgment in 2013 , allowing 16 scientist to be promoted to level F, the CSB , in view of revised RRs, 30 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH is not having promotional avenues beyond D level at which the applicant is already working at the age of 37. Thus, despite the existence of Flexible Complimenting Scheme, the CSB, may be due to structural and functional constraints , is not having any promotional avenues beyond level D .
31. Now , let us examine the chronological sequence of events and the factual position as per the orders of the DoPT & other rules and regulations :
1. Requirement for NOC : The applicant, at the time of applying for UAS , requested for NOC on 04.03.2024. It is seen that, around two months thereafter, that is on 06.05.2024, he got his promotion from Scientist C to Scientist D level in CSB. Thus, it cannot be said that CSB is having any prejudice or bias against the applicant .
2. Public Interest: The promotion of the applicant on 06.05.2024 & rejection of the NOC on 13.05.2024, have occurred almost simultaneously and prima facie seem to indicate that CSB had definite plans for the proper utilisation of the applicant 'domain expertise and knowledge' within the organisation, which is in public interest.
31 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH In this regard, the relevant provisions pertaining to public interest and forwarding of applications, as highlighted are reiterated as follows:
"2. INTERPRETING THE TERM 'PUBLIC INTEREST' a. The Heads of Departments should interpret the term 'public interest' strictly and subject to that consideration, the forwarding of applications should be the rule rather than an exception. Ordinarily, every employee (whether scientific and technical or non-scientific and non-technical personnel) should be permitted to apply for an outside post even though he may be holding a permanent post.
b. No distinction need be made between applications made for posts in a Department under the Central government, Autonomous Bodies or sub-ordinate offices, posts under the State Governments, posts in Public Sector Undertakings owned wholly or partly by the Central Government or a State Government and posts in quasi-Government organizations. They should all be treated alike so far as the forwarding of applications is concerned.
c. For this purpose, "scientific and technical personnel", may be interpreted to mean persons holding posts or belonging to services which have been declared to be scientific or technical posts or scientific or technical service.
32 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR DEALING WITH SUCH APPLICATIONS The general principles to be observed in dealing with such applications are as under:
a. Applications from purely temporary Government servants
- Applications from such Government servants should be readily forwarded unless there are compelling grounds of public interest for withholding them.
b. Applications from permanent Government servants - Both permanent nonscientific and non-technical employees as well as permanent scientific and technical employees could be given four opportunities in a year to apply for outside posts, except where withholding of any application is considered by the competent authority to be justified in the public interest. A permanent Government servant cannot justly complain of hardship or harsh treatment if his application for any other post or employment is withheld.
c. Applications of Government servants who have been given some technical training at Government expenses after commencement of service - Such Government servant cannot justifiably complain of hardship if he is not allowed to capitalize the special qualifications so gained by seeking other better employment. Withholding of application in such a case is therefore justifiable."
33 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH From the above, it is very clear that though forwarding of applications should be the rule rather than an exception, the application can be withheld if the Government servants have been given technical training and their services have to be utilised within the organisation .
2. Shortage of manpower : it is observed that NOC has been denied to the applicant on grounds of shortage of manpower . In this regard , the table given by the CSB at annexure R2 is as follows :
"Central Silk Board BENGALURU 560068 SANCTIONED, FILLED & VACANCY POSITION IN CENTRAL SILK BOARD AS ON 01.05.2025.
# Designation Level Pay matrix Direct Depart. Sanctioned Filled Vacant
Recruit Promotion
ment (%)
(%)
GOURP-A
1 Director 13 Rs.123100-215900 50 50 10 10 0
PRE COCOON SECTION
2 Scientist-D 12 Rs.78800-209200 - 100 113
3 Scientist-C 11 Rs.67700-208700 - 100 61
4 Scientist-B 10 Rs.56100-177500 100 - 194
TOTAL 368
POST COCOON SECTOR
2 Scientist-D 12 Rs.78800-209200 - 100 17 17 0
3 Scientist-C 11 Rs.67700-208700 - 100 3 3 0
4 Scientist-B 10 Rs.56100-177500 100 - 55 30 25
TOTAL 75 50 25
TOTAL SCIENTISTS 443 281 162
Note: 1 NOTE: In the Scientific cadre, Scientist-B is entry level post and in-situ promotion under Modified FCS is granted from Scientist-B to 34 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Scientist-C and from Scientist-C to Scientist-D as per "Central Silk Board Scientist Group-A post Recruitment Rules, 2013". On promotion of a Scientist from one grade to the next higher grade, the post shall stand upgraded automatically as personal to the scientist concerned and after superannuation, the post shall revert back to the grade in which the post was earmarked initially."
32. From the above table, it is clear that there is no vacancy or shortfall at the Level-D of the applicant or even higher level . The number of sanctioned posts of Scientist-D is 113 and all 113 Post are filled up and there are no vacancies. Further more at the Director level also, vacant post is shown as zero. At one level below of the applicant also, there is no vacant post as the number of sanctioned post is three and all three posts are occupied. Vacancies are existing only at two levels below the level of the applicant , that is at scientist B level , where the sanctioned number is 55 and available strength is 30, leaving vacancy of 25. It is obvious from the above table that the contention of the CSB that NOC was not issued to the applicant due to shortage of manpower is not correct. Also, the applicant is not expected to work at two levels below his present rank. The very fact that the applicant has been promoted a few months ago from the level of scientist C to scientist D clearly indicates that the CSB wants to 35 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH utilise him at D level alone and not at two levels junior to his present rank. Moreover, the contention of the applicant that CSB was in the process of filling up the vacancies at scientist B level has not been denied by the Respondent .
33. Operational and functional Exigencies/Requirements: in this regard, for ease of convenience, the reply dated 30.05.2025 received from the Director Technical at Ann A24, regarding assignments being handled by the applicant is produced ad verbatim as below :
"Reply to the inputs sought from the Establishment Section
1. A brief on the ongoing research project or assignments being handled by Dr. Manjunatha G R, Sei-D Dr. Manjunatha GR, Scientist-D is presently working in the Research Co-ordination Section (RCS) and he has been assigned duties with the following:
Coordination of Intellectual Property & Business Promotion (IP&BP) activities.
Co-ordination of R&D monitoring pertaining to CSB- CSRTI-Berhampore, CSB-ISTR-Kodathi, and CSB Silkworm Seed Organizations.
Principal Investigator for the research project (MTS13002MI) and Co-investigator for AICEM project, It is to state that both projects were concluded and report will be submitted within 10 days. The outcome of the project will 36 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH be continued by next available investigator of the project as per CSB guidelines.
At present, no any other assignments specifie in nature are handling by Dr. Manjunatha GR
2. A clear assessment of any likely administrative or technical loss to the organization in the event of his departure for service No. Transfer/ relinquishment superannuation etc are routine in the administrative set-up and secordingly alternative arrangements will be made to continue the on-going programme of the organization. However, Dr. Manjunatha GR, Scientist-D, in case of relieve from the section/organization alternate arrangements can be made. Further, it is to state that Dr. Kiran R Scientist-C has been posted to RCS recently and he will be guided by the Dr. Manjunatha GR before he gets relieved-off for all his present assignments for smooth continuation of works." From the above , it is very clear that both the projects on which the applicant was working have already been concluded and he was not handling any specific assignment of similar nature. Further more one Dr.Kiran R., has already been posted in anticipation of relief of the applicant. However, CSB has pointed out that since document was secured by the applicant through RTI only, no cognizance should be taken of it.
37 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
34. However, it has to be accepted that both the contentions of the CSB regarding shortage of manpower and operational agencies for rejection of NOC & Technical Resignation are not correct, in the light of the above documents produced by the respondents themselves. Technical Resignation versus Resignation :
The relevant portion in the judgment of Sanjay Jain vs. national Aviation Co. of India Ltd., - Civil Appeal No.7822/2011 (DD:
01.11.2018) reads as follows:
"10. Clause 2 of Standing Order 18 provides that in case of resignation is with immediate effect or any time before the expiry of notice period, acceptance of resignation is required.
Acceptance is not required in case a notice has been given of 30 days. It is right of a workman to serve and resignation tendered by him shall be effective or operative with exception, if at the time when such resignation is tendered, disciplinary action is pending against him or is intended or proposed to be taken against him by the appropriate authority, unless the company decides to accept the resignation.
11. In our opinion, from a bare reading of the provisions contained in Standing order 18, it is crystal clear that a permanent employee has a right to resign from the services by giving a notice 38 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of the period of 30 days as prescribed under Standing Order 17, and is entitled to obtain certificate from the employer for the period services have been rendered."
35. Further more , in the case of Ram Mehar Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others and connected matters - CWP35184 of 2019 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 21.01.2025, the contention of the petitioner for acceptance of technical resignation was upheld. The relevant portions are as follows:
9. The said permission to grant the technical resignation has been denied to the petitioner(s) and their resignations have been treated as a normal resignation from the service, which is causing prejudice to the petitioner(s), which grievance has been raised before this Court in the present petition.
......................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................
28. ................. the technical resignation is to be submitted so that an employee can claim the benefit of continuity in service and benefit of protection of pay in their new Department, ............................................................................ ........................................................................................................
39 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
30. With regard to the assertion of the respondent counsel appearing on behalf of the Respective Session Divisions in CWP No.10610 of 2020 and CWP No.12900 of 2020, where it has been mentioned that the prayer for the appearing in the written examination/counselling was denied to the petitioners therein but they still appeared for the written examination/counselling hence, they cannot claim the benefit of technical resignation, it may be noticed that in CWP No.10610 of 2020, the petitioner therein sought permission to appear in the counselling/written examination on 01.06.2019 which was scheduled to be held on 10.06.2019. The declining of the permission to appear was never brought to his notice upto the date of the examination and the same was brought to his notice after the examination was held. Hence, in the said case also, once the petitioner in CWP No.10610 of 2020 never knew that his request to appear in the examination has been declined and he appeared in good faith, it cannot be said that the petitioner appeared despite rejection of his claim. It can be said that the candidate appeared without the permission of the same hence, he is to be treated similar to the candidates, who appeared in the examination without permission but were later on granted the ex-post facto permission so as to 40 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH appear and compete for the post of Clerk in pursuance to advertisement dated 01.09.2016..
31. Further, the said issue qua the grant of technical resignation is no longer res integra, the same has already been decided by this Court more 11 of 13 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666 CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases than once. While deciding CWP No.11810 of 2019 titled "Ankur Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and ors.", dated 30.09.2024, the similar issue arose, which has been decided in the favour of the candidate so as to treat his resignation as technical resignation.
32. Learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to rebut the said fact that the claim of the petitioner(s) is similar to that of Ankur Sharma's case (supra) hence, the said judgment applies upon the claim of the petitioner(s) to their benefit.
33. Further, the similar issue arose qua the denial of the technical resignation by the respective Session Divisions, which issue was decided by this Court while deciding CWP No.21498 of 2024 titled "Vikas Sandhu Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and ors.", dated 09.01.2025, wherein also, on the similar issue, where the benefit of technical resignation was being denied only on the ground that the candidate never competed with 41 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the permission of District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, the benefit was allowed in favour of the employee concerned wherein, the said employee was given permission to participate in the subsequent selection process by the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal. There also, before selection, the said benefit to participate in the selection process had been given to almost all the petitioner(s). That being so, the claim of the petitioner(s) is also covered by the judgment in Vikas Sandhu's case (supra).
34. Keeping in view the above, the impugned orders of denying the benefit of technical resignation to the petitioner(s) by various respective Session Divisions are accordingly set aside.
35. The resignation submitted by the petitioner(s) will be treated as technical resignation for all intents and purposes. The State of Punjab will be free to decide the claim of the petitioner(s) in accordance with the law keeping in view the fact that the resignation submitted by the petitioner(s) are technical resignations.
36. The present bunch of petitions are allowed in above terms.
37. Any claim raised by the petitioner(s) with the State of Punjab for the grant of any benefit keeping in view the fact that their resignations should be treated as a technical resignation, be decided by the State of Punjab as expeditiously as possible 42 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH preferably within a period of 3 months from the receipt of copy of this order."
36. Moreover in the case of Union of India and another vs. Shri Shashi Kant Saran (since dead) through LRs and others in Writ Petition No. 19614 of 2015, the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, pertaining to CSB itself, the respondent in this case, the Hon'ble High Court has stated as follows :
"22. The Court is unable to accept the plea of the Petitioners essentially because within the same organisation and in the same cadre of scientists, there cannot be discrimination. The questions of law in SLP (Civil) No.11219 of 2012 were left open for consideration in an appropriate case. The plea of limitation raised by the Petitioners vis-à-vis the claim of other similarly placed scientists cannot be countenanced for the simple fact that the legal position regarding the correctness of the decision of the CAT, Patna Bench (Ranchi Circuit) became clear only after the aforementioned order of the Supreme Court.
23. This is the reason why the Karnataka High Court remanded the matter to the CAT. The reasoning put forth by the CAT, Bangalore on remand, negativing the plea of limitation, appears 43 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH to be the correct position in law. Consequently, the Court rejects the plea of the present Petitioners that the CAT, Cuttack Bench ought to have rejected the plea of the Opposite Parties on the ground of limitation. Importantly, when the CAT directed consideration of the representations of the Petitioners by the CSB, no plea of limitation was raised by the CSB at that stage.
24. It appears that in the case of CSB itself, a similar issue was raised in relation to certain other employees in Maharaj Krishna Bhat v. State of J & K (2008) 9 SCC 24. It was held by the Supreme Court that the authorities concerned ought to have accepted the relief granted to one set of similarly placed employees by the Supreme Court of India and should have extended it to all others similarly situated. In M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, regarding one set of employees of CSB, the question was whether the relief could be denied only because the Petitioners were not parties to an earlier judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the said case as under:
"In the present case, this court is witnessing shocking state of Affairs going on in the Central Silk Board. The Central Silk Board wants each and every employee to be dragged to the Central Administrative Tribunal even if there is a judgment delivered in respect of a class of employees. The Central Silk Board cannot be permitted to act in the 44 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH manner and matter in which it has acted in the present case, once the judgment has attained finality in respect of a particular post all the employees are certainly entitled for higher pay scale of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996."
25. In this context, the observations of the Supreme Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Kumari v. Union of India (1994) 7 SCC 565 read as under:
"a more deserving candidate may not have the means to approach the court, should he be denied the benefit which has been granted to those who dared the department with court orders........." the action of the respondent to deny the same relief to the similarly situated persons is per se illegal, arbitrary and in defiance of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India."
26. This very case of scientists of the CSB was dealt with elaborately by the Karnataka High Court recently in its judgment dated 4th February, 2021 in W.P. No.31831 of 2019 (S-CAT) (The Central Silk Board v. C. H. Ramanna ). The facts of the said case were that employees belonging to Senior Research Assistants, Senior Research Officers, Hindi Translators were granted the higher pay scale of Rs.5,500-9,000/- with effect from 1st January, 1996. However, there was no up-gradation in respect of grant of 45 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH higher pay scale on the basis of the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission in respect of Technical Assistants.
27. Some of the Technical Assistants approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh with W.P. No.4769 of 2003 claiming higher pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- with effect from 1st January, 1996. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the said writ petition granting the benefits. The CSB then challenged the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a writ appeal. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ appeal.
28. The SLP filed by the CSB was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16th December, 2013. The review petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26th February, 2014. On the strength of the above order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Technical Assistants in Karnataka filed O.A. No.170 of 2018 in the CAT, Bangalore, which allowed it by an order dated 28th February, 2018. This was then challenged before the Karnataka High Court. The same plea that the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court 'in-personam' was rejected by the Karnataka High Court. It was reasoned as under:
"12. In case the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, there would be two class of employees working in one organization i.e., 46 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Central Silk Board which is certainly violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India. All the employees in the class Technical Assistants are to be treated as equal and are to be given a uniform pay scale in the entire organization and therefore, the argument canvassed by the learned counsel is repelled. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the claim of the respondents is hopelessly barred by limitation.
13. It is a settled preposition of law, the claim relating to salary, claim relating to grant of annual increment are having recurring cause of action and the respondents cannot be denied the reliefs only because they were not party to the judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In the considered opinion of this court, the pleas raised by the present petitioners organization are hyper technical and the Tribunal was justified in extending the benefit of higher pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996 i.e., from Rs.5,000-8,000/- to the applicants before the Tribunal. Resultantly, this court does not have any reason to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [See: M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628]"
14. In the present case, this court is witnessing shocking state of affairs going on in the Central Silk Board. The 47 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Central Silk Board wants each and every employee to be dragged to the Central Administrative Tribunal even if there is a judgment delivered in respect of a class of employees. The Central Silk Board cannot be permitted to act in the manner and matter in which it has acted in the present case, once the judgment has attained finality in respect of a particular post, all the employees are certainly entitled for higher pay scale of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996.
15. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is not only dismissed but it is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lakh only] to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order."
29. In the present case still the Court sees no reason why within the same cadre of scientists there should be discrimination between one set of employees and the others identical placed. The plea of financial difficulties in such type of cases cannot be countenanced. In All India IMAM Organization v. Union of India, (1993) 3 SCC 584, the Supreme Court held that financial difficulties cannot override the fundamental right and to be treated on equal basis.
48 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
30. A similar view was taken by the Madras High Court in its judgment dated 19th April, 2011 in W.P. No.8207 of 2011 (D. Poongavanam v. Government of Tamil Nadu), where it was held as under:
"From the analysis of the judgments cited above, it is beyond doubt and clear that once the point is decided in favour of a group of person, there is no further point in waiting for each and every person to file petition and pray for the same relief. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, the benefit of the judgment is equally applicable to similarly placed persons to do complete and substantial justice."
31. The legal position is clear viz., that if one set of employees is granted a benefit, it cannot be denied to another set identically placed as the former category.
32. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court sees no merit in the present petition and it is dismissed as such. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
37. Likewise in the case of Rasujit Chongder vs. Central Silk Board - 170/98/2024 , this Hon'ble Tribunal has observed as follows :
49 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "11. The other ground of acute shortage of staff i.e., administrative reasons is not disclosed in the rejection order of NOC dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure-A9) or in the impugned order dated 31.01.2024. It is for the first time, in the reply statement, the said ground has been taken. Even assuming shortage of staff, the terms and conditions of provisional appointment order cannot be given a go by. The applicant has been selected in a government department BIS and not in any private organisation. It is well settled that the validity of the impugned order must be judged by the reasons so mentioned therein, and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons stated in the reply statement.
12. ...................
13. ....................
14. In the case of Paras Khuttan vs. GAIL India Ltd & another, [LPA 285/2021 (DD: 08.09.2022)], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed thus:
"37. The Order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the learned Single Judge has not considered the distinction between a "probationer" and an "employee"
serving GAIL India Ltd. The general terms and conditions of service rules define an "employee" as well as a "probationer". They are two distinct categories. Rule 8.2 of the Rules in respect of E-O level employees provides for termination of services by 3 month's notice or pay in lieu 50 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH thereof by either side. Meaning thereby, only in case of employees, the mandatory requirement of serving 3 months notice or pay in lieu thereof is in existence. Such a condition is not in existence in respect of probationer. The services of a probationer as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order can be terminated at any point of time without any notice. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, once the employer is having a right to terminate the probationer without issuing any notice or without granting any salary in lieu of notice, the same has to be made applicable in case the probationer wants to leave the job and, therefore, to that extent, the learned Single Judge has erred in law and on facts in treating the probationer and regular employee at par in the matter of resignation."
15. Resignation is a matter of right to an employee. The employee cannot be forced to serve if he is not willing unless there is some stipulation in the Rules or in the terms of appointment or any disciplinary proceeding is pending which is sought to be avoided by resigning from the service. This view is fortified by the law enunciated by The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Jain vs National Aviation Company of India Limited in Civil Appeal No. 7822/2011 (DD: 01.11.2018).
51 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
16. For the reasons aforesaid, we find merit in the OA. The impugned order 31.01.2024 (Annexure-A1) suffers from arbitrariness and is illegal. Hence, the same deserves to be set aside. 17. Resultantly, the memorandum dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure-A1) issued by the respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to relieve the applicant from the post of Scientist-B (PostCocoon) in an expedite manner, in any event, on or before 31.03.2024. OA stands disposed of, in terms of above."
38. From the above facts and circumstances , it is very clear that the case of respondent falls within the parameters laid down in the cases of Ram Mehar Singh, Rasujit Chongder etc. The contentions of the CSB that there is shortage of manpower and there are operational agencies for refusal to grant NOC at the earlier stages and subsequent rejection of the Technical Resignation of the applicant, are neither correct, nor tenable, not supported by the documents produced before this Tribunal and hence rejected. However, it cannot be denied that the applicant has been promoted to Level-D very recently and his domain expertise will be useful for CSB. Moreover, what 'public interest' would mean in a set of circumstances is to the subjective satisfaction of the CSB and cannot be 52 OA 244/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH quantified. Hence, the OA is partly allowed. Accordingly the CSB is directed to:
1) Either, accept the Technical Resignation of the applicant OR
2) Issue a detailed Speaking Order, giving cogent and valid reasons for the rejection of the Technical Resignation of the applicant.
3) In view of the urgency of the matter, the CSB is directed to comply with the instructions within four weeks from the date of receipt of the Certified copy of this order.
4) OA stands disposed of, in terms of above.
No costs.
sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.