ORDER : N. Santosh Hegde, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a person who has been selected in a competitive examination has any legal right for extension of time for joining the selected post. 4. The respondent herein was selected by the appellant to the post of Assistant Engineer/Electrical (Trainee) by its appointment letter dated 5-7-1999, the respondent having accepted the said offer, sought for extension of time to join the post till 15-9-1999, which the appellant granted. On the expiry of the said period, the respondent sought further time till 15-10-1999 by his letter dated 6-9-1999. The appellant did not accede to this request of the respondent but advised him to join the department by 15-9-1999 and thereafter seek leave, if need be, from the appropriate committee. The respondent did not comply with this advise of the appellant, on the contrary he made a further representation seeking a further time of one month to join the service, that is, a month more than what was denied by the appellant as per its letter dated 10-9-1999. Even though the extension of time was refused by the appellant by its earlier letter still for reasons unknown the appellant on 9-11-1999 informed the respondent that as a last chance he should join by 15-11-1999. This was done by his letter of 15-10-1999. The respondent did not comply with this instruction of the appellant and he did not join duty even up to 15-11-1999. On 24-11-1999, the respondent sent a communication to the appellant that he had not received any intimation as to the extension of time sought for by him as per his letter dated 15-10-1999, hence, sought further instructions as to the date by which he could join the department. Since the appellant did not accede to the request of the respondent to join duty, the respondent then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11176 of 2000 praying, inter alia, for quashing of the order dated 9-11-1999 and for a direction to the appellant to allow the respondent to join the service as an Assistant Engineer/Electrical (Trainee) in the appellant department. Since the appellant did not accede to the request of the respondent to join duty, the respondent then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11176 of 2000 praying, inter alia, for quashing of the order dated 9-11-1999 and for a direction to the appellant to allow the respondent to join the service as an Assistant Engineer/Electrical (Trainee) in the appellant department. The plea raised in the said writ petition was that he would have joined the services of the appellant by 15-11-1999 had the communication reached him on time and because of non-receipt of the said letter of the appellant he could not join the duty even till February 2000. It is to be noted that the writ petition was filed on 20-8-2000 even though the request for further extension was rejected by the appellant in the month of November 1999. 5. The appellant in response to the said petition before the High Court stated that it was clear from the attitude of the respondent that he had no intention of joining the duty and that he had violated clause 8 of the letter of appointment. The appellant also pleaded that the respondent had no such vested right for appointment in spite of his failure to join as directed by the appellant. The High Court by the impugned order held that since the department had written a letter to the respondent on 9-11-1999 directing the respondent to join on 15-11-1999 and the said letter having been received by the respondent after the due date on 15-11-1999 due to postal strike, the appellant was duty-bound to appoint the respondent. 6. In this appeal, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no obligation on the appellant to have extended the time for joining even in the first instance still the appellant had granted time to join on a request made by the respondent but the respondent did not avail that opportunity, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent had any right for further extension. The appellant also alternatively contended that assuming the letter of 9-11-1999 did reach the respondent belatedly even then the said respondent did not make any effort to verify from the appellant whether his last request for extension was granted or not and it is only in February 2000 he made his claim for joining the department which on the very nature of things was unacceptable because the appellant was obviously taking his own time to make up his mind to join or not to join the duty of the appellant. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that due to certain personal difficulties, the respondent could not join the post immediately and the appellant having extended the time to join up to 15-11-1999 was duty-bound to inform the respondent of decision to extend time up to 15-11-1999, this having done by a letter which was delivered days after 15-11-1999 the appellant should have permitted the respondent to join duty when the respondent approached it next. The High Court, therefore, was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no default on the part of the respondent. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we think the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition. It is to be noted that the appellant was intimated of his selection as far back as on 5-7-1999 wherein he was called upon to signify his acceptance by 15-7-1999. On 12-7-1999 the respondent accepted the offer but sought for two months time that is up to 15-9-1999 to join the duty. The appellant acceded to the request and granted him time up to 15-9-1999 to join the duty. But before the expiry of the said period, that is, on 6-9-1999, the respondent sought another extension by one month up to 15-10-1999. The appellant did not accede to this request but directed the respondent to join the duty by 15-9-1999. The respondent did not obey this order either, but sought further extension of time by one month i.e. up to 15-10-1999 and thereafter, requested another extension up to 25-11-1999. The appellant for some unknown reason wrote a letter to the respondent dated 9-11-1999 and gave the respondent a last chance to join by 15-11-1999 which the respondent claims reached him a few days after 15-11-1999. The appellant for some unknown reason wrote a letter to the respondent dated 9-11-1999 and gave the respondent a last chance to join by 15-11-1999 which the respondent claims reached him a few days after 15-11-1999. Therefore, he contends that he could not comply with the direction of the appellant to join the duty by 15-11-1999. We find no genuineness in the plea of the respondent. Even assuming that the appellant had condoned the non-joining of the respondent for duty up to 15-11-1999, in our opinion, there was a legal obligation on the respondent to have verified with the appellant what had happened to his request for extension of time till 25-11-1999 which the appellant did not do. Even according to the respondent, he did receive the letter some time after 15-11-1999 but we find no material on record except the self-serving statement of the respondent to show what he actually did after the receipt of that letter to join the duty. From the material on record, we only find that he approached the appellant on 16-2-2000 i.e. nearly three months after the last date sought by the respondent himself to join. This only shows that the respondent was not really serious in accepting the offer of the appellant and joining the duty with the appellant. Herein, we may notice it is on record that the respondent was serving in an Engineering College as a Lecturer, therefore, obviously he was in no hurry to join the selected post with the appellant. This is further fortified by the fact that the appellant chose to file the writ petition only on 24-8-2000, that is, another six months after he made his claim for the post with the appellant. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we think the appellant was justified in rejecting the request of the respondent to grant him further time to join and deny him the benefit of his selection. By the conduct of the respondent, the appellant had to keep a post vacant for him for a long time, therefore, there is no justification in acceding to the request made by the respondent in the writ petition and the High Court was in error in granting the said relief. 9. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. 10. 9. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. 10. The writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court is dismissed.