1 / 3 CGHC010203672024 2026:CGHC:31318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3629 of 2024 Nohar Kumar Dhiwar S/o Indal Ram Dhiwar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Korasi, Thana Kharora, District Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Department Of Technical Education, Skill Devlopment Department And Employment, Indrawati Bhawan 5q4w Gp7, Capitol Complex, Sector 19, Atal Nagar- Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492101 2. Principal Government Enginering College Bilaspur Koni, Bilaspur, 495009 3 - Secretary Department Of Higher Education, First Floor, Mahanadi Bhawan/ Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, 492002 4 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commision Through Secretary, North Block, Sector-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, Pin-492002 5 - Vice Chancellor Shahed Mahendra Karma University Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Registrar Shaheed Mahendra Karma University Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. K.G. Yadav, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 22/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while serving as an Assistant Professor under respondents No. 1 and 2, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.23 16:57:30 +0530 2 / 3 participated in the selection process for the post of Deputy Registrar after obtaining due permission and was appointed vide order dated 06.10.2022. It is submitted that despite repeated representations by the petitioner and recommendations made by respondent No. 2, respondents No. 1 and 2 failed to relieve him from service, although respondent No. 3 had granted extension of time to enable him to join. Owing to such inaction, the petitioner could not assume charge of the new post, leading respondent No. 3 to cancel his appointment vide the impugned order dated 12.10.2023. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the inaction of the respondents and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 2. Learned State counsel submits that although the petitioner was granted permission to participate in the recruitment process for the post of Deputy Registrar and was duly selected, he sought grant of lien over his post of Assistant Professor instead of resigning and joining the new post. It is submitted that the request for lien was rightly rejected due to acute shortage of teaching staff and as grant of lien is not a matter of right under the Fundamental Rules. The petitioner had the option to resign and join the higher post but failed to do so. It is further submitted that the respondents never obstructed the petitioner's career advancement and the cancellation of his appointment was solely on account of his failure to join within the stipulated time. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted permission to 3 / 3 participate in the recruitment process for the post of Deputy Registrar and was ultimately selected. It is also not in dispute that instead of resigning from the post of Assistant Professor and joining the new post, the petitioner sought grant of lien under Rule 13(c) of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules. A plain reading of the said provision makes it evident that grant of lien is neither automatic nor a matter of right. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that, in the facts of the present case, there was any legal requirement for the respondents to grant lien before he could join the post of Deputy Registrar. The petitioner always had the option to resign from his substantive post and join the higher post but consciously chose not to do so. 5. Merely because the petitioner's request for grant of lien remained under consideration or was not decided within the time expected by him, the petitioner cannot take advantage of such pendency and justify his failure to join the post within the period granted by the appointing authority. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 had granted extension of time to enable the petitioner to join, yet the petitioner failed to assume charge within the stipulated period. Consequently, the cancellation of his appointment was a natural consequence of his non-joining and cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned action warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti