IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13699 of 2025 Date of Decision:04.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dr. Prabhjot Kaur …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Om Pal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who completed her Masters in Surgery in the subject of Anatomy from Medical Government College, Patiala (Punjab) in the year 1998, came to be appointed as Assistant Professor (Anatomy) in Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College and Hospital Mandi at Ner Chowk, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh ( for short ‘SLBSGMC, Mandi at Ner Chowk’) (Annexure P-1) on the recommendation of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. Petitioner joined the afore college on 24.04.2024, as is evident from communication dated 08.05.2020 (Annexure P-2), whereby the Principal of the college concerned intimated the Director, Medical Education & Research, Himachal Pradesh, with regard to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 joining of the petitioner. Though, on 11.06.2023(Annexure P-3), petitioner came to be designated as Assistant Professor, but after having served the college concerned for approximately five years, she tendered her resignation on 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-4). Vide afore resignation, petitioner virtually gave three months’ notice, expressing her intention to leave the post. On 28.05.2025, respondent No.3 forwarded the resignation of the petitioner to respondent No.2 (Annexure P-4/1). Before decision, if any, could be taken upon the resignation of the petitioner by the respondents, petitioner herein came to be offered appointment as Associate Professor in RIMT University, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab vide letter dated 18.06.2025. 2. Since despite there being clear cut mention of three months’ notice in the resignation letter, the respondents failed to accept the same, petitioner vide communication dated18.08.2025 (Annexure P-6), submitted her relieving and departure report to respondent No.3, as is evident from copy of daily register (Annexure P-6). On 20.08.2025, petitioner submitted her joining report as Associate Professor at RIMT Medical College, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, but she is unable to mark her attendance there as her AEBAS ID is still linked to the portal of SLBSGMC, Ner Chowk, Mandi, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Vide communication dated 23.08.2025, (Annexure P-8), respondent No.3 apprised the petitioner that 3 respondent No.1 had examined the matter as per Rule 4(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022 and in view of the ‘ NMC deficiency’ has rejected the proposal of resignation(Annexure P-9). In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned rejection of the resignation of petitioner and her relieving and departure report vide Annexures P-8 dated 23.08.2025 and P-9 dated 21.07.2025 may kindly be quashed and set-aside; (ii) That the resignation letter dated 19.05.2025, Annexure P- 4, submitted by the petitioner may be deemed to have been accepted w.e.f.18.08.2025, with all consequential reliefs; (iii) That the respondents may be directed to issue service/experience certificate to the petitioner for the period she served as Assistant Professor/designated Associated Professor in Anatomy in SLBSGMC, Ner Chowk; (iv) That the respondents may be directed to release the AEBAS ID of the petitioner from the portal of SLBSGMC, Ner Chowk forthwith, so that she may be able to mark her attendance at her new place of employment i.e. RIMT Medical College and Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh (Punjab).” 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, is that once it is not in dispute that petitioner herein was not a bounded candidate and 4 at no point of time, she had applied for pre-mature retirement, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents not to accept her resignation. Mr. Sharma, while referring to Rule 4(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022, vehemently argued that same is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, because petitioner herein has simply submitted her resignation, enabling her to join RIMT Medical College, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, where she has been offered the post of Associate Professor. He submitted that otherwise also, ground of deficiency of teaching faculty, sought to be raised at the behest of the respondents, is not available in terms of the judgment dated 11.08.2021passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1775 of 2019, titled as Dr. Saurabh Galodha vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others as well as this Court in CWP No. 4319 of 2025, titled Deepanshu Dhiman vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting aforesaid contention rasied at the behest of the petitioner, attempted to argue that petitioner herein of her own could not tender resignation, rather before seeking fresh appointment, if any, in RIMT Medical College, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, she was required to seek permission of the Department of Medical Education, Himachal Pradesh. He further submitted that since there is deficiency of teaching faculty in medical colleges situated in 5 Himachal Pradesh, coupled with the fact that NMC has already imposed penalty on the colleges for not having sufficient teaching faculty, resignation submitted by the petitioner rightly came to be rejected. He also submitted that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while considering the case of the petitioner under Rule 4(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022. He further submitted that petitioner has also been served a Show Cause Notice dated 03.09.2025 for her having proceeded on unauthorized leave and for visiting aboard without prior sanction of the Government. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through record carefully. 6. This Court, having taken note of the fact that petitioner herein is not a bounded candidate, rather she completed her Masters in Surgery in the subject of Anatomy from the Medical Government College, Patiala (Punjab), coupled with the fact that she submitted her resignation, enabling her to join RIMT Medical College, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, passed order dated 26.08.2025, which reads as under:- “Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, waives notices on behalf of the respondents/State. He prays for and is granted two days’ time to file short reply/instructions. Since it is not in dispute that applicant/petitioner herein is not a bonded candidate and she had submitted resignation letter dated 19.5.2025 (Annexure 6 P-4), prima-facie, this Court is of the view that there is no valid reason, if any, available with the respondents to reject the resignation of the petitioner. While filing reply, respondents may taken note of the judgment dated 27.3.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4319 of 2025, titled as Deepanshu Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which stands implemented”. 7. Despite there being aforesaid order, respondents failed to accept the resignation submitted by the petitioner, rather they filed a detailed reply. Reply filed by the respondents, if perused in its entirety, nowhere disputes facts as have been noted hereinabove, rather an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that without acceptance of resignation, she could not have proceeded to join RIMT Medical College, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that prior to submitting her resignation, petitioner herein went abroad without any permission. He further submitted that on account of indiscipline and insubordination, for the reasons as detailed hereinabove, the Department has already serve Show Cause Notice dated 3.9.2025. While referring to Rule 4(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while rejecting the resignation submitted by the petitioner. However, having carefully perused aforesaid Rule, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General for the reason that this is not a case 7 where the petitioner has submitted an application for pre-mature retirement, rather she submitted her resignation, which she is entitled to. Once petitioner is not a bounded candidate, she cannot be compelled by the respondent-State to serve respondent-State against her wishes. Needless to say, petitioner, who is a qualified doctor, cannot be treated as a slave. In case, she does not wish to work in State of Himachal Pradesh, and has some good opportunity in her hand, she has every right to progress, which cannot be permitted to be curtailed on the whims and fancies of Medical Education Department. 8. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of fact that on 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-4)m petitioner has submitted her resignation, which reads as under:- “ I am writing to formally submit my resignation from the post of Associate Professor (Designated) in the Department of Anatomy at SLBSGMCH, Mandi at Ner Chowk, Himachal Pradesh, effective three months from the date of this letter, in accordance with the notice period required. This decision has been an extremely difficult once, but it has become necessary due to personal and professional circumstances. My family resides at a considerable distance in a different State and the prolonged separation is increasingly challenging for me. Additionally, I have found the current work place atmosphere to be highly stressful, which has taken a toll on my physical and mental health. I am grateful for the support extended to me by colleagues and the administrations. I assure you that I will continue to perform my duties diligently during the notice 8 period and will ensure a smooth handover of my responsibilities. Kindly acknowledge this letter as my formal notice of resignation to initiate the necessary formalities and issue me the experience and character certificate accordingly.” 1. 9. In afore communication, petitioner made it clear that this notice may be treated as three months’ notice from the date of the letter in accordance with the notice period required. Though, aforesaid resignation letter came to be forwarded by the Principal of the college concerned to Director, Medical Education & Research, Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 28.08.2025, but since within a period of three months no rejection was conveyed to the petitioner, she, vide communication dated 18.08.2025, submitted information to the Principal of the college concerned regarding her relieving and departure. Admittedly, in the case hand, order thereby rejecting the resignation of the petitioner came to be issued on 21.08.2025, copy whereof was endorsed to the Principal of the college concerned on 20.08.2023, by which time, petitioner had already submitted her relieving and departure report, as is evident from communication dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-6). 10. Though, attempt has been made on behalf of the respondents to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that her resignation could not be accepted in terms Rule 4(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022, but as has been observed hereinabove, same are not applicable in the case 9 at hand for the reason that petitioner never applied for premature retirement, rather she straightway submitted her resignation, specifically stating therein that her resignation may be treated as three months’ notice. Since the respondents failed to respond within a period of three months, petitioner had no option, but to submit her relieving and departure report. The resignation of the petitioner has not been rejected on the pretext that there is a shortage of doctors and as such, departure, if any, of the petitioner in terms of resignation at this stage may not be in public interest. However, this Court is of the view that an individual has his/her own choice to serve Department for such period as he or she desires. Had the petitioner furnished any bond specifically undertaking therein that she would render services in the State of Himachal Pradesh for a specified period, respondents would have been right in rejecting her resignation on afore ground, but since petitioner has not submitted any kind of bond and she has got a better opportunity in her hand, this Court cannot permit the respondents to defeat right of progression of the petitioner. 11. In similar facts and circumstances, this Court passed judgment dated 27.03.2025 in CWP No. 4319 of 2025, titled Deepanshu Dhiman vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P- 12) wherein this Court, while holding that resignation tendered by the petitioner therein shall be deemed to have been accepted, directed 10 the respondents to relieve the petitioner immediately. It is not dispute that respondents have already implemented the aforesaid judgment, as a result of which, petitioner in that case has already joined at PGI, Chandigarh. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce relevant paras of aforesaid judgment herein below:- “8. Careful perusal of aforesaid order suggests that resignation of the petitioner has not been accepted on the ground that there is paucity of doctors and in the event of acceptance of resignation tendered by the petitioner, there shall be shortfall in faculty, which may attract monetary penalties to the college concerned on account of its having not fulfilled guidelines/parameters laid down by the NMC. 9. Resignation of an employee cannot be rejected on the ground set up by the respondent-State. Every individual has a right to progress in his/her career. Since petitioner stands selected against the post of Assistant Professor in a premier institution i.e. PGIMER, she has every right to tender her resignation from her previous institution, enabling her to join new institution. To meet the shortfall, if any, of the faculty, respondent-State has many options. Post offered to be vacated by the petitioner can be filled up by way of direct recruitment, contract or even by promotion in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules. 10. In similar facts and circumstances, Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 450 of 2024 titled Ajay Kumar Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh, rejected the plea of shortage of staff and directed the respondents to accept the resignation forthwith. It would be apt to take note of following paras : “8. On 17.12.2024, Co-ordinate Division Bench had observed as under:- “The resignation tendered by the appellant has been rejected by the State Government on the ground that there is an acute shortage of Medical Officers (Specialists) in the State. However, we find that the same by itself cannot be a reason enough which can bind an unwilling employee to serve the State. Therefore, the respondent-State to explain its stand on the next date of hearing.” 9. Thereafter, the applicant/appellant has filed this application on 26.12.2024 with the submission that his resignation be accepted as a unconditional resignation, as he is unwilling to serve with the present employer as he has been offered appointment in AIIMS Bilaspur and he wants to excel his career in future. 11 10. In view of this application, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to have instructions in this regard. 11. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has expressed his inability to have instructions because of closure of offices on account of death of Ex-Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. 12. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that yesterday offices were open and delay in adjudication of matter would hamper his future causing irreparable loss to him as AIIMS Authority may withdraw the offer of appointment. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application is taken for consideration and considering the averments made in application and the submissions made on behalf of parties, the applicant/appellant is permitted and directed to submit his unconditional resignation to the Principal Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on or before 30.12.2024 and in such eventuality, such resignation shall be accepted by the concerned Authority on the very same day, subject to final outcome of present appeal and thereafter, applicant/appellant shall be at liberty to join in AIIMS Bilaspur or wherever he intends to join.” 11. In the aforesaid Order, Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically held that in case an employee is not willing to serve the department, he cannot be forced to do so. 12. Yet in another case, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.1.2025, in LPA No. 25 of 2025, titled Dr. Trilok Chand v. Union of India and Anr., has deprecated the action of the respondents in denying NOC to the petitioner therein, who wanted to apply for post of Assistant Professor ENT in AIIMS Bilaspur. In the aforesaid case, Division Bench of this Court categorically ruled that shortfall of vacancy cannot be a valid ground for the State to deny NOC. 13. Leaving everything aside, once there is nothing to suggest that while joining at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar Medical College Nahan, petitioner had not furnished any kind of bond or undertaking to serve the State for any specific period, respondent has otherwise no right to reject the resignation 12 tendered by the petitioner, who now for advancement of her career wants to join a premier institution. 14. Consequently, in view of the above, this court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Order dated 17.3.2025 passed by the Secretary (Heath) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-6) and communication dated 26.3.2025, thereby rejecting the unconditional resignation of the petitioner are quashed and set- aside. Resignation tendered by the petitioner (Annexure P-5) shall be deemed to have been accepted. Respondent is directed to relieve the petitioner immediately. Petitioner shall be entitled to all service benefits arising out of her service with the respondent in accordance with law. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.” 12. In similar facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, in case titled Dr. Saurabh Galodha vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (CWP No. 1775 of 2019), observed that an unwilling horse cannot be retained. Most importantly, in aforesaid case, Division Bench of this Court further observed that issuance of No Objection Certificate may jeopardize public interest, but the other option available to the petitioner would make the things more worse for the respondents. It is certainly a hobson’s choice. 13. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The communication dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-9) issued by Special Secretary (Health ) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, addressed to the Director Medical Education & Research, Himachal 13 Pradesh, thereby conveying rejection of resignation of the petitioner, is quashed and set-aside. The resignation of the petitioner dated 18.08.2025 shall be deemed to have accepted w.e.f. 18.08.2025, as result of thereof, the respondents are directed to issue experience certificate as well as AEBAS ID, expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 04, 2025 (shankar)