Ashwarya Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Maurya for the Board.

It is submitted that the petitioner is a selected candidate and it would be unreasonable to deny him the benefit of extension of the period for joining for which he has prayed in his application. The petitioner contends that he is still ready to join and that the impugned order dated 15.10.2009 deserves to be set aside.

Sri S.R. Singh learned Counsel for the Board contends that the period of joining is prescribed under the rules and he has invited the attention of the Court to Rule 13 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. The same is quoted below :

Intimation of names of selected candidates.--(1) The Inspector shall, within ten days of the receipt of the panel and the allocation of institution Under Rule 12--

(i) notify it on the notice-board of his office ;

(ii) intimate the name of selected candidate to the Management of the institution, which has notified the vacancy, with the director, that, on authorization under resolution of the management, an order of appointment, in the proforma given in Appendix "E" be issued to the candidate by registered post within fifteen days of the receipt of intimation requiring him to Join duty within fifteen days of the receipt of the order or within such extended time, as may be allowed to him by the Management, and also intimating him that on his failure to Join within the specified time, his appointment will be liable to be cancelled;

(iii) send an intimation to the candidate, referred to in Clause (ii), with the direction to report to the Manager within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of appointment by him from the Manager or within such extended time as. may be allowed to him, by the Management.

....

Sri Singh on the strength of the aforesaid rule contends that as a matter of fact the petitioner was granted ample time and he failed to join and further from a perusal of his application dated 7.9.2009 he has prayed for further six months time. He submits that after having waited for a reasonable period the impugned order has been passed which does not suffer from any infirmity and does not call for interference Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Board and perused the rules. The same provides that the proforma as provided under Appendix E has to be filled up by the management and the letter of appointment has to be issued with an intimation to the candidate to join within a period of 15 days or within such extended time as may be allowed to him by the management in the institution. It is the admitted position that the petitioner had been unable to join on account of his family circumstances. He has further prayed for six months time to join the institution. The Court does not find any valid reason except a bald and vague averment of family circumstances so as to justify further extension of time. Further the time earlier provided has to be reasonably construed.

According to the letters of the management as referred to in the impugned order dated 15.10.2009, the management had offered the post to the petitioner thrice after the panel was declared way back on 24.10.2008. The petitioner has voluntarily delayed his joining for the past more than a year. The life of the panel itself is one year. In view of the provisions quoted above, the management has already discharged its obligation under the Statute and it is the petitioner who has voluntarily disabled himself.

This exercise of seeking extension cannot be permitted endlessly, that too even after the expiry of the period of the panel itself. The Statute provides for a period of joining and the power of extension cannot be construed to stretch for more than the life of the panel itself. The attitude of the petitioner is to avail extensions as a luxury which is against the intention of the Statute. Reasonableness has to be assessed keeping in view the life of the panel and the period provided for joining. Anything beyond would be unreasonable. From the common man''s point of view, it can be said that the institution cannot be placed in the position of a bride''s father to unendingly wait for the grooms procession to arrive, as if there is no option or alternative available. The petitioner has crossed all limits of the "Indian Standard Time" compelling the management and the authority to run out of patience. This in my opinion apart from being illogical, is against the larger interest of the institution and the students for whose benefit the petitioner was offered appointment. The petitioner seems to have no regard for the same and therefore does not deserve any further sympathy or indulgence.

The petitioner cannot be permitted to abuse a privilege which is not an absolute right. The petitioner is to act reasonably. In the opinion of the Court the petitioner has taken undue advantage of his selection and therefore the impugned order dated 15.10.2009 does not require any interference.

The writ petition therefore lacks merit and it is dismissed.