M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioner has prayed for quashing an order by which his appointment as library Assistant in the department of public libraries of the State Government has been cancelled. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner was working as a library assistant on purely temporary basis at the public library, Bangalore. The departmental recruitment committee invited applications for making selection for regular appointment for the Posts of library assistants. The petitioner was one of the applicants for such appointment. He was selected for appointment as a library assistant. Thereafter, an order of appointment was issued to the petitioner dated 27-9-1979 (Annexure 'd' ). The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:"he/she should join duty in the office in which she/he is appointed within fortyfive days of the receipt of this order, failing which the appointment offered to him/her will be treated as cancelled, without further intimation. Before joining duty he/she should produce before the concerned officer for scrutiny the original certificates in support of the qualification and evidence in support of the date of birth. It should be noted that no request for appointment in any other place will be entertained as a rule and that he/she should work at the place of appointment during the period of probation before any request for a transfer can be entertained". According to the petitioner, as he was suffering from disease and was not in a position to report for duty, he did not report for duty within the time limit prescribed in the order of appointment. Subsequently, by a letter dated 5-2-1980 (Annexure 'g') the Petitioner was informed that the memo dated 27-9-1979 by which he was appointed as a library assistant was cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 3 ) SRI V. Laxminarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged the following contentions : (I) The order of cancellation of appointment was signed by incharge State Librarian and therefore it was invalid. (ii) Though the petitioner produced the medical certificate to the effect that he was not in a position to report for duty, the cancellation of appointment without giving further time to the petitioner to join duty was illegal and arbitrary. (ii) Though the petitioner produced the medical certificate to the effect that he was not in a position to report for duty, the cancellation of appointment without giving further time to the petitioner to join duty was illegal and arbitrary. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions urged for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the relevant rule governing the time allowed for joining duty on first appointment by direct recruitment to any post under the State Government. Rule 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General recruitment) Rules, 1977, is the relevant rule and it reads :"18. Joining time for appointment- (1) A candidate appointed by direct recruitment shall assume charge of the post specified by the appointing authority as soon as possible after the date of the order of appointment, but not later than forty -five days from this date. Explanation : -For the purpose of this sub-rule "the date of the order of appointment" means the date of despatch of the order of appointment by registered post to the address given by the candidate. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the appointing authority, may, on the application of the candidate and if satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons for doing so, by order in writing, grant such further time as it may deem necessary. (3) The name of the- candidate who fails to assume charge of the post within the time specified in sub-rule (1) or within the further time granted under sub-rule (2) shall stand deleted from the list of selected candidates and the candidate concerned shall cease to be eligible for appointment". Under sub-rule (1) a maximum period of forty-five days has been fixed for joining duty in respect of a candidate appointed by direct recruitment. Sub-rule (2) empowers the appointment authority to grant further time if such authority is satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons for doing so. Sub-rule (3) provides that the name of a candidate, who fails to join duty within the time allowed by sub-rule (1) or within the time extended under sub-rule (2) shall stand deleted from the list of selected candidates. ( 5 ) IN the present case, in the order of appointment, forty-five days time was given to the petitioner to join duty as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 18. ( 5 ) IN the present case, in the order of appointment, forty-five days time was given to the petitioner to join duty as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 18. Admittedly the petitioner did not join duty within the said period. Even so, the appointing authority extended the time on its own to enable the petitioner to join duty. This is clear from the contents of the impugned order which reads as follows:"sri P. Devasundar a candidate selected by the Departmental Recruitment committee was appointed as Library assistant and posted to District Central library, Chintamani as per this office memo of even No. dated 29 -7-79 with instructions that he should report at the place of posting within fortyfive days of the receipt of the order. The reminder letter was also issued to the candidate in this office Memo of even No. dated 31-10-79, under Registered Post. Acknowledgement due has been returned with the noting "always door locked", as the correct postal address was not furnished in his application. Taking a lenient view of the case, the candidate was issued a final reminder under Registered Post acknowledgment Due in this office of even No, dated 5-1-80, instructing the candidate to report for duty at the place of posting within 7 days of the receipt of the memo, failing which the appointment order issued would be cancelled and he would forfeit his claim for the post of library Assistant. Though the reminder issued was received by him on 15-l-80 he has failed to report for duty within the time, as instructed therein. Instead in his letter dated 16-1-80, received in this office on 18 1-80 he has requested this office to give him posting orders to bang; lore as it is not possible for him to report for duty at District Central library, Chintamani and to help him with immediate effect, with an intimation to him. He has failed to report for duty at District Central Library, Chintamani in spite of the grace time given to him as per this office memo dated 5-1-80. Orders thereon : in view of the circumstances explained in the preamble, the appointment order issued to Sri P. Devasundar as Library assistant, in this Office Memo of even no. dated 27-9-79 is hereby cancelled". Orders thereon : in view of the circumstances explained in the preamble, the appointment order issued to Sri P. Devasundar as Library assistant, in this Office Memo of even no. dated 27-9-79 is hereby cancelled". From the contents of the above order, it is seen that, earlier, notices had been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to join duty and the last memo issued to the petitioner was dated 5-1-80 and by the said memo he was asked to join duty within seven days from the date of receipt of the said memo. It was received by the petitioner on 15-1-1980 and therefore, he should have joined duty on or before 224-1980. ( 6 ) AS the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had sought for extension of time for reporting for duty on medical grounds, I looked into the original records which were produced by the learned High Court Government pleader. The record disclosed that the petitioner has made two representations- one on 9-10-1979 and another on 16-1-1980. There is reference to the latter representation in the impugned order. In these representations, the petitioner requested the appointing authority to appoint him to a post at Bangalore in spite of the specific condition in the appointment order to the effect that no such request would be entertained. There was no prayer made by the petioner before the appointing authority to extend the time for joining duty on medical grounds or on any other ground in exercise of its power under sub-rule (2) of rule 18. However, the appointing authority, on its own gave the petitioner, as a last chance, a week's time from the date of receipt of notice dated 5-1-1980 to join duty which was received by the petitioner on 15-1-1980. That time also expired on 22-1-1980. The petitioner failed to utilise the opportunity to join duty. As a consequence, on 22- 1-1980 the name of the petitioner stood deleted from the select list in view of sub-rule (3) of rule 18. That time also expired on 22-1-1980. The petitioner failed to utilise the opportunity to join duty. As a consequence, on 22- 1-1980 the name of the petitioner stood deleted from the select list in view of sub-rule (3) of rule 18. Therefore, the petitioner can have no grievance that the impugned order was signed by in charge State Librarian and not by the Librarian, who is the appointing authority, because no order by the appointing authority was necessary for cancelling the appointment as the name of the petitioner stood deleted from the list of selected candidates by the operation of sub-rule (3) of rule 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, in my opinion, there is no substance in both the contentions urged for the petitioner. Accordingly, I make the following order: i) Rule discharged, ii) Writ Petition dismissed, iii) No costs. --- *** --- .