IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10291 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Vinit Ramol …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Vide advertisement No.HFW-ME-Dr.YSPGMC(B)(15)/Viral Lab/2022-1276 dated 06.06.2022 (Annexure P-2), respondents invited applications for the post of Field Worker under the National Programme of Viral Hepatitis Surveillance. Petitioner herein, being fully eligible, made an application for consideration of his candidature against the post in question. On 18.06.2022, during walk-in-interview, since petitioner was found suitable for the post in question, respondents issued appointment letter dated 18.06.2022 (Annexure P-3). Though after receipt of aforesaid appointment letter, petitioner joined the respondent/institution and kept on working till April, 2025, but thereafter he of his own volition and without any external pressure tendered his resignation. Though after expiry of one month from the date of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- resignation, petitioner submitted an application dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), seeking therein permission to rejoin the duties as Field Worker, but since no heed was paid by the respondents, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main relief:- “i. That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation and allow him to join his duties as Field Worker with the respondent department in continuity in service from the date he has given his resignation due to unforeseen and unfortunate compelling circumstances by issuing a writ of mandamus in the interest of justice.” 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No.1 to 3 have filed reply under the signatures and affidavit of Principal, Dr. YSPGMC, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, are not disputed, however, an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he of his own volition left the job, as such, there was no occasion for the respondents to permit him to rejoin the duties. Though while making this Court peruse reply filed by the respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, attempted to argue that appointment of the petitioner was made in consultation with the National Centre for Disease Control, Delhi, as such, afore authority ought to have been impleaded as necessary party, but this Court, having perused advertisement as well as appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner, is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Chauhan, for the -3- reason that recruitment process for appointment against the Field Worker was initiated by the respondent-department. if it is so, there is no occasion, if any, to implead National Centre for Disease Control, Delhi as party respondent. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, further stated that bare perusal of appointment letter placed on record by the petitioner itself suggests that his engagement against the post of Field Worker was temporary. He submitted that though contract of the petitioner was to expire in the month of January, 2026, but since he himself opted to leave the job, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to permit the petitioner to withdraw his resignation. He further submitted that otherwise also, there is no question of tendering his resignation, especially when there is no provision to that effect in terms and conditions of the contract. Lastly, Mr. Chauhan, fairly submitted that representation filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-6) is still pending and same shall be considered expeditiously. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court, having taken note of the fact that though petitioner himself without any external pressure from the respondents’ side tendered his resignation, sees no reason to issue direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin the duties, however, having taken note of the fact that post on which petitioner was working is still lying vacant, coupled with the fact that project in which petitioner was appointed is still in progress, this Court, without going into -4- the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within three weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 28, 2025 (sunil)