10. At this juncture, it is worth referring to a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (2) LLL 45 in the case of State of Karnataka vs. C.Lalitha, wherein, their Lordships have held that justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over that one should get what is due to him or her in law. The concept of justice cannot be stretched so as to cause heart-burning to more meritorious candidates.
13. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgments referred to above, this court holds that the petitioner herein is entitled for alternative employment and the rejection made by the respondents by their impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. I direct the respondents to provide such alternative employment to the petitioner from the date of his discharge with pay protection, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits for which he is legally entitled to, except back wages.