[2025:RJ-JP:50802] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12911/2025 Arun Singh S/o Gokul Chand, Resident Of 602, Surya Nagar, Near Sudama Kutir, Gopal Pura Byepass Road, Jaipur, 302015. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Secretary To The Government, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Director, Medical And Health Services Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur. 4. Director, Medical Education Society, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Jhakar Mr. Ashish Nagarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Prakhar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/12/2025 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: a). The order dated 17.12.2024, by which the petitioner lien on the post of Senior Medical Officer in Department of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, was terminated may kindly be quashed upto that extent and it may be held that the petitioner is [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (2 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] entitled to resume the post of Senior Medical Officer in Department of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties on the post of Senior Medical Officer in Department of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan. b) Any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be paid to the petitioner in the interest of justice. c) Heavy and exemplary cost may kindly be imposed on the respondents and the same may kindly be awarded to the petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was initially appointed on the post of Medical Officer on probation and after completion of probation, he was confirmed in service. He further submits that pursuant to a selection process for the post of Assistant Professor conducted by the Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Raj MES), the petitioner joined as Assistant Professor (Pharmacology) under Respondent No.4 and was posted at Government Medical College, Dausa. He further submits that the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 08.07.2025 indicating that the petitioner, who was not confirmed as Assistant Professor, desires to return to his earlier post on which he is having a lien. He further submits that the petitioner be permitted to join his earlier post as [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (3 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] Senior Medical Officer under the Medical and Health Services Department (respondent No.3) 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He submitted that on 17.12.2024, when the petitioner was relieved from the Department of Medical and Health Services, his lien was terminated and now the petitioner is not having any lien; therefore, he cannot return to his earlier position. He further submitted that as per the Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Medical Teacher Recruitment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules 2024 (in short “Rules of 2024”), the petitioner was appointed in substantive capacity and though he is on probation, once a person is appointed in substantive capacity, he cannot be permitted to return to the earlier position by invoking the right of lien. He placed reliance upon judgment in State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Dr. Hamir Singh Chouhan (deceased) through LRs: Civil Appeal No. 5392/2017 (Supreme Court), and submitted that once a petitioner has joined on a substantive post, he cannot exercise the right of lien on the earlier post. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record along with the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for respondents. 5. The short controversy involved in the instant case is that the petitioner was appointed under the Rajasthan Medical Services Rules, 1963, (as amended in 2011) (in short “Rules of 1963”), on the post of Medical Officer vide order dated 05.10.2015, and thereafter he was confirmed in service. [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (4 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] Subsequently, the petitioner was selected on the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacology) under Rules of 2004 and was posted at Government Medical College, Dausa. The petitioner was relieved on 17.12.2024 by Respondent No.3 with a specific conditio of termination of lien from the date the petitioner joined under the Raj MES. The petitioner moved a representation on 08.07.2025, which was forwarded by the Principal and Controller Government Medical College, Dausa on 11.07.2025; however, no decision has been taken till date. 6. Rules 15 to 19 govern the provisions of lien under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Rule 18 provides that a Government servant's lien on a permanent post shall, in no circumstances, be terminated, even with his consent, if the result will be to leave him without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post. 7. The facts as admitted by the respondents clearly indicate that the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years on 05.10.2015 and thereafter he was confirmed in service under Rules of 1963. The petitioner acquired a right of lien as provided under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. On being selected as Assistant Professor (Pharmacology), the petitioner was relieved on 17.12.2024, and while issuing the relieving order, the Director (respondent No.3) terminated the lien, which is impermissible in view of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR). [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (5 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] 8. The material on record indicates that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Pharmacology), pursuant to appointment order dated 09.12.2024. The conditions attached with the appointment order dated 09.12.2024 indicate that the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years and only on satisfactory service, the petitioner shall be confirmed in service, otherwise not. It further indicate that if the services of the petitioner are found to be unsatisfactory, he shall be discharged from service, meaning thereby that there is no protection available to him is confirmed on current post under the Rules of 2024. The process of recruitment as provided in Part IV has been followed in the instant case; therefore, the appointment of the petitioner is regular, but he is not a permanent employee unless he is made permanent by the respondent No.4. 9. In case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Dr. Hamir Singh Chouhan (deceased) through LRs (supra) the factual issues before Hon’ble Supreme Court was as under: 2. That the respondents herein were initially appointed in the Animal Husbandry Department either as Animal Husbandry Extension Officer or Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the year 1971. That all of them were subsequently selected after following the due selection process between 1976 to 1978 in the Dairy Federations. That as per the relevant G.O. and the relevant Rules, the respondents continued to have the lien with the parent department/State Government. That the [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (6 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] names of the respondents appeared in the seniority list of the Dairy Federations and all of them were promoted in the year 1983 or 1989 in the Dairy Federations. All of them retired as employees of the Dairy Federations between 1999 to 2003. All of them received the retirement benefits from the Dairy Federations. 2.1 Thereafter, after a period of approximately six to nine years, from the date of superannuation from the Dairy Federations and after receiving all the retirement benefits from the Dairy Federations, the respective respondents filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge of the High Court claiming the pensionary benefits from the State Government treating their lien to be continuing with the State. That the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. 2.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the lien of the respective respondents came to be terminated subsequently in the year 1988/1993 w.e.f. the date on which they were absorbed/made permanent in the Dairy Federations. 4.1 It is submitted that as per G.O. dated 30.01.1976, the respective respondents, who joined the Dairy Federations, their lien was kept for a period of two years or their confirmation in the Corporation/Union, whichever is earlier. It is submitted that therefore, on and after they got confirmed in the Dairy Federations, the respective respondents were not entitled to have any lien elsewhere. It is submitted that therefore the lien could not have been extended beyond a period of two years. [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (7 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] 10. While referring the judgment in case of State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. SN Tiwari and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 700 it was held that under Rule 18(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the lien of a Government servant to a post stands terminated on acquiring a lien on a permanent post which is outside the cadre post. A person cannot be substantively appointed on two substantive posts simultaneously. The observations in the case of Dr. Hamir Singh Choudhary (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: 5.4 It is submitted that so far as the position of the Rules is concerned, the question of lien has to be decided with reference to Rules 15 and 18 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. It is submitted that the lien acquired by a Government servant cannot be terminated even with his consent if he is left without lien. It is submitted that in the facts of the present case, the lien acquired by each of the respondents under the Government could not have come to an end by their posting and continuance in the respective Milk Unions until they were absorbed therein. It is submitted that till the date they were absorbed they continued to be the Government servant and, therefore, were entitled to the pension according to the Rules. It is submitted that Rule 158 governs the cases of pension of those who are working under the Local Bodies and paid by the Local Funds administered by the Government of Rajasthan, but so far as the respondents are concerned, they were continuing as confirmed Government servants without confirmation in their respective [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (8 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] unions and therefore the guideline dated 30.01.1976 could not override the operation of the Rules relating to the lien. It is submitted that the legal position is that the lien could not be terminated even with the consent of the Government servant, if he is left without lien. 7.1 Thus, all of them were specifically informed that regarding their previous service, the matter will have to be settled between them and the State Government and so far as the Corporation is concerned, the appointment will be a fresh appointment. That thereafter, all of them were appointed in the concerned Dairy Federations/Unions under the Rajasthan State Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. on the basis of the recommendations made by the selection committee of the Rajasthan State Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. initially on a probation for a period of one year. At the time when number of officers of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Services came to be selected on certain posts in the Rajasthan Dairy Development Corporation and the various Milk Producers Cooperative Unions, some of these officers workings in the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry services represented to the Government that before making up their mind about accepting of their offers, they would like to know what benefits in respect of their service in the Government will be available to them. To that, the respective employees were informed vide communication/G.O. dated 30.01.1976 that their lien will be kept for a period of two years or until their confirmation, whichever is earlier. That therefore, right from very beginning, the respective respondents were told that their lien [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (9 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] will be kept for a period of two years or until their confirmation in the Corporation/Union, whichever is earlier. With an open eye, the respective respondents accepted their appointments in the Dairy Development Corporation/Milk Federation Unions. All of them thereafter continued to work in their respective milk unions under the Dairy Development Corporation. All of them got the promotions while working in different milk unions under the Dairy Development Corporation. All of them retired as employees of the Dairy Development Corporation/Milk Federation Unions. All of them were paid the retirement benefits when they retired on attaining the age of superannuation. That thereafter after a period of six to nine years of their retirement from the Dairy Development Corporation/Milk Federation Unions, they filed the writ petitions before the High Court claiming pensionary benefits from the State Government contending inter alia that their lien as a Government servant in the Rajasthan Government service have been continued. Once the respondents were absorbed on selection and after selection process in the Dairy Development Corporation/Milk Federation Unions, they worked as such and even got the promotion, thereafter, the respective respondents ceased to have the lien in the Government service. The letter dated 30.01.1976 is very clear. Even as per Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which provides for termination of lien, “a Government servant’s lien on a post stands terminated on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post outside the [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (10 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] cadre on which he is borne”. Therefore, once the respective respondents were appointed after selection and interview in the Rajasthan Dairy Development Corporation/Milk Federation Unions, they ceased to have the lien in the Government. 7.2 As rightly submitted on behalf of the State, there cannot be two liens on two substantive posts. The submission on behalf of the respondents that it was not a case of permanent appointment in the Dairy Development Corporation/Milk Federation Unions, cannot be accepted. Their appointment orders on record are very clear. They were appointed after due selection, interview and even after following the due selection process and even earlier when they had doubts, it was made explicitly clear in the communication dated 30.01.1976. Therefore, once the respondents were permanently absorbed and became an employee of the Dairy Development Corporation/Milk Federation Unions, they ceased to have the lien with the State Government and therefore, they shall not be entitled to the pensionary benefits as State Government employees and that too after having received the retirement benefits from the Dairy Development Corporation/Milk Federation Unions. 11. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years as Medical Officer under Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and thereafter he was made permanent by Respondent No.3. After completion of probation, the petitioner acquired a lien on the post of [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (11 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] Medical Officer, where he was appointed in substantive capacity on 05.10.2015. 12. During the course of service, the petitioner applied pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 14.10.2024 and was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacology) on 19.12.2024. However, the said appointment was on probation for a period of two years and was subject to certain conditions attached for confirmation in service under the Rajasthan Medical Education Service Rules, 2024. Thus, the petitioner has not acquired any lien under the Rajasthan Medical Education Service Rules, till he is confirmed in service. 13. The principle of law as referred to by learned counsel for the respondents clearly indicates that a Government servant cannot acquire a lien on two posts simultaneously, as he cannot be substantively appointed on two substantive posts at the same time. Since the petitioner has not acquired any lien till date in the capacity of Assistant Professor (Pharmacology), therefore he continues to hold only one lien, and that too on the post of Medical Officer, under respondent No.3. 14. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the right of lien as provided under Rules 15 to 18 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 15. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to exercise his right of lien by admitting him as Senior Medical Officer under the Rules of 1963 in the [2025:RJ-JP:50802] (12 of 12) [CW-12911/2025] Department of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan. 16. Respondent No.4 is also restrained from passing any order of confirmation of probation of the petitioner till a decision is taken by Respondent No.3 on the exercise of right of lien by the petitioner. 17. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /126