ORDER :

N. Santosh Hegde, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a person who has been selected in a competitive examination has any legal right for extension of time for joining the selected post.

4. The respondent herein was selected by the appellant to the post of Assistant Engineer/Electrical (Trainee) by its appointment letter dated 5-7-1999, the respondent having accepted the said offer, sought for extension of time to join the post till 15-9-1999, which the appellant granted. On the expiry of the said period, the respondent sought further time till 15-10-1999 by his letter dated 6-9-1999. The appellant did not accede to this request of the respondent but advised him to join the department by 15-9-1999 and thereafter seek leave, if need be, from the appropriate committee. The respondent did not comply with this advise of the appellant, on the contrary he made a further representation seeking a further time of one month to join the service, that is, a month more than what was denied by the appellant as per its letter dated 10-9-1999. Even though the extension of time was refused by the appellant by its earlier letter still for reasons unknown the appellant on 9-11-1999 informed the respondent that as a last chance he should join by 15-11-1999. This was done by his letter of 15-10-1999. The respondent did not comply with this instruction of the appellant and he did not join duty even up to 15-11-1999. On 24-11-1999, the respondent sent a communication to the appellant that he had not received any intimation as to the extension of time sought for by him as per his letter dated 15-10-1999, hence, sought further instructions as to the date by which he could join the department. Since the appellant did not accede to the request of the respondent to join duty, the respondent then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11176 of 2000 praying, inter alia, for quashing of the order dated 9-11-1999 and for a direction to the appellant to allow the respondent to join the service as an Assistant Engineer/Electrical (Trainee) in the appellant department. The plea raised in the said writ petition was that he would have joined the services of the appellant by 15-11-1999 had the communication reached him on time and because of non-receipt of the said letter of the appellant he could not join the duty even till February 2000. It is to be noted that the writ petition was filed on 20-8-2000 even though the request for further extension was rejected by the appellant in the month of November 1999.

5. The appellant in response to the said petition before the High Court stated that it was clear from the attitude of the respondent that he had no intention of joining the duty and that he had violated clause 8 of the letter of appointment. The appellant also pleaded that the respondent had no such vested right for appointment in spite of his failure to join as directed by the appellant. The High Court by the impugned order held that since the department had written a letter to the respondent on 9-11-1999 directing the respondent to join on 15-11-1999 and the said letter having been received by the respondent after the due date on 15-11-1999 due to postal strike, the appellant was duty-bound to appoint the respondent.

6. In this appeal, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no obligation on the appellant to have extended the time for joining even in the first instance still the appellant had granted time to join on a request made by the respondent but the respondent did not avail that opportunity, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent had any right for further extension. The appellant also alternatively contended that assuming the letter of 9-11-1999 did reach the respondent belatedly even then the said respondent did not make any effort to verify from the appellant whether his last request for extension was granted or not and it is only