RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) HAVING perused the order under appeal and documents annexed with this petition, we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge that after securing appointment to the post of Stenographer by litigating before this Court for seeking appointment and after having successful in that endeavour the petitioner has consistently avoided to join his duties at Jaisalmer where he was consistently asked to join through different orders and therefore, ultimately the order passed by the competent authority that since the petitioner -appellant has failed to join within time permitted to him at the place of posting he must be deemed to be not willing to join the duty and his appointment be cancelled. In compliance of the order dt. 11.12.1989 by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4068/89 the appointment order was issued to the petitioner -appellant by the Commissioner Desert Development, Jodhpur. The appointment as Stenographer was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 26.12.1989. In pursuance of the appointment order he was posted in the office of Chief Engineer, I.G.N.P. Jaisalmer as per the vacancies existing and reported by the Collector Jaisalmer. The petitioner did not join the office, after passing the order issued on 1.1.1990. Then reiterating the order vide Annexure/3 dt 18.1.1990 it was noticed that the petitioner has not Joined his duties in compliance of the order dt. 1.1.1990. The letter dt. 18.1.1990 is admittedly received by the petitioner which is apparent from Annexure 4 by which he has demanded appointment letter. We have failed to understand that when appointment as Government servant was made by Annexure/2 dt. 1.1.1990. Why petitioner was asking for a fresh appointment. The subsequent orders were of posting which were duly conveyed to the petitioner. Yet again on 21.6.1990 the petitioner was given an appointment order passed by the Addl. Chief Engineer, I.G.N.P. Jaisalmer with the direction to join within 30 days, in response of said the petitioner by his letter dt. 16.7.1990 (Annexure/6) instead of joining wrote to the Director Rajasthan Prachaya Vidhya Shighra Pratishtan to give him appointment at the vacancy lying therein because he did not want to go to Jaisalmer. That clearly goes to show that he has deliberately did not joined at Jaisalmer inspite of having been aware about the order and was making a demand to get appointment in another department at Jodhpur. Again another application was made to Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Annexure/7 dt. 17.7.1990) for giving him appointment to the aforesaid institution in place of appointment at Jaisalmer. This request was again reiterated by letter dt. 9.8.1990 (Annexure/8) to the Additional Chief Engineer, I.G.N.P. and asked for extention of period for joining. This was replied to by the concerned officer that the letter of request neither specifies time for which extension was sought, nor it was accompanied with any material supporting his alleged ill health vide communication dt. 23.8.1990 (Annexure/18).
(3.) WE are in these circumstances have no hesitation to reach the same conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge, that petitioner has not wilfully availed the appointment offered to him. The Court has never directed to offer an appointment to the petitioner at Jodhpur only.;