Candidates must act with diligence regarding job offers, and failure to join after multiple extensions can lead to cancellation of appointment without grounds for legal challenge.

JUDGMENT

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.09.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"] in OA No.2125/2021.

2. The brief facts of the case which are required to be noticed are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Senior Secretariat Assistant [SSA] in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Ooty, via letter dated 20.01.2020. The petitioner was informed that he had to join his post on or before 10.02.2020.

2.2. Concededly, the petitioner did not join the post by the date indicated in the letter of appointment.

2.3. The petitioner, admittedly, sought an extension which was granted to him up-until 31.03.2020, pursuant to his representation dated 18.03.2020, via memorandum dated 19.03.2020. Notably, this request for extension was preceded by an earlier request made by the petitioner, via communication dated 11.02.2020.

2.4. Concededly, on 25.03.2020 i.e., six days before the extended deadline for joining the post was to expire, the petitioner made another request for extension of time because of prevalence of coronavirus. The extension sought was till 20.04.2020. On 26.03.2020, the respondents communicated to the petitioner that he could join "after this problem" was over; by which they possibly meant that ferocity of the pandemic subsided.

2.5. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner got no response to the communications that followed thereafter, including the communication dated 15.06.2020.

2.6. The petitioner, it appears, amongst other communications, also wrote to the respondents on 05.10.2020.

2.7. It is not in dispute that, based on the petitioner's request made in his communication dated 05.10.2020, the time given to the petitioner to join the subject post was extended till 12.10.2020. It was made clear though, that if the petitioner would fail to join the post by the said date, the offer of appointment shall stand cancelled.

2.8. The record shows that despite the extension granted up-until 12.10.2020, a further extension was granted by the respondents till 17.10.2020, via memorandum dated 14.10.2020. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to join duty on the date indicated by the respondents i.e., 17.10.2020.

3. It is in these circumstances that the offer of appointment was cancelled by the respondents on 20.10.2020.

3.1. It appears that the petitioner, thereafter, entered into correspondence with the respondents, and in this context, reference is made to the communications dated 21.10.2020, 02.11.2020, 23.11.2020, 27.11.2020, 09.12.2020, 23.12.2020, 31.12.2020, 11.01.2021, 29.01.2021, and 09.02.2021. It is relevant to note though that communications dated 09.12.2020, 23.12.2020 and 31.12.2020, have not been placed on record.

3.2. These communications were followed by a legal notice served by the petitioner to the respondents, on 16.02.2021

3.3. The record indicates that the petitioner approached this court, in the first instance, by way of a writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 6197/2021 which was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the Tribunal.

3.4. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner approached the Tribunal.

3.5. The Tribunal, after recording the dates and events to which we have made a reference above, via the impugned order dated 27.09.2021, declined to interfere with the order of cancellation of the offer of appointment dated 20.10.2020.

4. Mr R. K. Sonkiya, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that