JUDGMENT :

1. These appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.01.2021. Since facts are similar in both the appeals we may record them from those arising in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1015/2021 which is connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9703/2018. Petitioner Dr. Maina Raigar was selected and offered appointment as Senior Demonstrator (Pathology) by the State Government on 15.02.2017. At that time she was pursuing her higher studies of post-graduation. She had applied to the authorities for extension of joining time. The Government on its own granted extension of six months. Since she was not satisfied with this extension she approached the High Court. By an interim order dated 21.08.2017 the Single Judge had directed the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the petitioner. This interim protection continued till final disposal of the writ petition. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition in terms of the orders passed in cases of Dr. Chandar Prakash Gunawat vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (2) RLW (Raj.) 1730 and Dr. Reenu Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 19964/2017). The portion of the judgment in case of Dr. Reenu Choudhary was reproduced. Against this order the State has filed this appeal. Facts in connected appeal are substantially similar.

2. Having heard learned Government counsel in the facts of the present case we are not inclined to interfere. This is so because as noted after initial extension of joining time by the Government for six months in the writ petition the Single Judge had protected the petitioners by issuing order of status quo. This continued till the petitions were disposed of. At this late stage, it would serve no purpose in reversing the order of the learned Single Judge. Under substantially similar circumstances the Single Judge in case of Chandar Prakash Gunawat had issued necessary directions for not cancelling appointment of petitioner concerned. This was carried in appeal. The Division Bench had also upheld this judgment. In the appellate order dated 21.07.2014 the Division Bench had also noticed these peculiar facts.

3. Having said that we share the anxiety of the Government advocate that Court should not follow these orders and judgments and create a situation where after issuing interim protection, the final orders are passed on the ground that under interim protection the time for joining duty stands extended. We would examine these questions in an appropriate case. However prima-facie it does appear that a person who has been selected and appointed on a public post, has a duty to join such post within the time permitted or extended. It would be questionable whether such a person has a vested right to insist that the offer of appointment be kept in abeyance for an indefinite period of time of several years till he or she completes higher studies which he or she is pursuing. The requirement of administration to fill up the posts would have to be taken into consideration and essentially would be for the administration to exercise the discretion to extend or not the extended time for joining duty.

4. Learned Government advocate may also be correct in contending that such petitioners cannot be equated with regular Government servants who can subject to certain terms and conditions as provided in the service rules asked for study leave. No leave can be granted to a person who is yet to join Government duty. Even in case of the study leave to the newly engaged doctors to pursue their post graduation courses, the Division Bench of this Court in a recent judgment dated 09.12.2021 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 911/2020, State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Dr. Kamaldeep Khatri and Others connected matters has made following observations:

“The right of the government servant to seek study leave therefore is hedged by several conditions. To begin with, as per Rule 59 all leaves and not just study