A single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Jyoti Singh, ruled that if an employee has been relieved by their previous employer, a new employer cannot deny them appointment after they have successfully completed the selection process.
Background Facts
The employee was serving as the General Manager (Finance) at Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited (BVFCL). In January 2024, Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd. (the respondent) advertised a vacancy for the position of Vice President (Finance). The employee applied for the role, passed the selection process, and received an offer letter dated June 7, 2024, requiring him to join by July 5, 2024.
Upon receiving the offer, the employee resigned from BVFCL the same day, requesting to be relieved within 15 days. As he was on probation, he believed he was not required to serve a notice period. However, BVFCL did not process his resignation immediately and, on June 15, 2024, issued a memorandum retroactively confirming his service, which delayed his release.
Unable to get a response from BVFCL, the employee decided to join Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd. on July 8, 2024. He submitted an undertaking to the respondent, promising to provide a relieving letter from BVFCL within 30 days. On July 12, 2024, BVFCL issued a show-cause notice questioning his departure and threatening disciplinary action. In response, the employee filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court, which stayed any disciplinary proceedings against him and instructed BVFCL to process his resignation.
Despite the Gauhati High Court’s order, Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd. revoked the employee’s joining on August 19, 2024, citing his failure to provide the relieving letter in the required timeframe. Dissatisfied with this decision, the employee filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court to challenge the revocation. On August 28, 2024, the Delhi High Court ordered the respondent not to take any further steps to fill the vacancy.
The employee argued that the Gauhati High Court had already recognized that BVFCL had issued an order on October 3, 2024, accepting his resignation and relieving him from service. Thus, he contended that, based on the relieving letter from BVFCL, there should be no impediment to his joining Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd. as Vice President (Finance), which was the sole reason for his revocation.
Conversely, the respondent contended that the position of Vice President (Finance) was still vacant. They maintained that the only reason for revoking the employee’s joining was his failure to obtain a relieving letter from BVFCL, asserting that his merit or credentials were not in question, as he had been selected by them.
Court’s Findings
The court noted that the sole reason for the revocation was the employee’s inability to provide a relieving letter from BVFCL, as per his undertaking to submit it within 30 days of joining. The court highlighted that BVFCL had relieved the employee effective October 3, 2024, rendering the basis for the revocation moot and removing any barriers to his joining the respondent.
Furthermore, the court observed that the respondent had not initiated any new process to fill the position, confirming that the post remained vacant for the employee to assume. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order dated August 19, 2024.
The court ruled that the respondent must allow the employee to join the position of Vice President (Finance) within one week, along with all consequential benefits. The writ petition was, therefore, allowed.
