Failure to Report for Duty by Prescribed Deadlines Extinguishes the Right to Public Appointment moves

The applicant was offered the post of Research Officer (Unani) on 12.07.2024 by Respondent No. 2 (CCRUM) with a posting in Chennai

The applicant requested multiple extensions and a change of posting to Delhi/UP citing family medical needs and delays in being relieved from his current employment with the UP Government

The Respondents granted extensions until 11.12.2024, but explicitly informed him that no further extensions would be granted due to administrative exigencies

When the applicant failed to join by the final deadline, Respondent No. 2 cancelled his appointment via an impugned order dated 20.12.2024

Subsequently, a candidate from the waiting list was appointed and joined the post on 01.03.2025

The applicant challenged the cancellation and selection process, alleging bias in interview marks and discrimination

1. Whether the cancellation of the applicant’s appointment due to non-joining within the extended deadline was arbitrary, discriminatory, or legally unsustainable

2. Whether the applicant had an indefeasible right to seek a posting of his choice or indefinite extensions based on personal hardships

3. Whether the selection process was vitiated by "changing the rules of the game" midway or by bias in the interview stage

The Tribunal applied the principle that an offer of appointment does not confer an absolute or indefeasible right to the post if the candidate fails to comply with stipulated conditions

It relied on the doctrine of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, noting that discrimination must be proven by showing that similarly situated individuals were treated differently without rational justification

The Tribunal distinguished Tej Prakash Pathak Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court Ors. (2024) 12 SCR 28, which prohibits changing eligibility criteria midway unless permitted by rules

Furthermore, it emphasized that judicial review is limited to the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits of administrative exigencies

The Tribunal found that the Respondents acted fairly by granting multiple extensions (from July to December 2024)

It reasoned that the applicant’s inability to secure a relieving order from his previous employer was a personal matter that could not override public interest or administrative timelines

Regarding the plea for relocation, the Tribunal noted that the post carries All-India Service Liability; thus, the applicant had no legal right to a posting of choice

The allegation of bias in the interview marks was dismissed as the applicant participated in the process without protest and only challenged the scheme after the cancellation

The Tribunal observed that the Respondents followed due process by appointing a waitlisted candidate to fill the vacancy, and interfering at this stage would disrupt administrative functioning

The applicant failed to join within the reasonable time provided and that administrative exigencies justified the Respondents' refusal of further extensions

The Original Application was dismissed, and all requested reliefs—including the setting aside of the cancellation and the request for relocation—were denied