1. The instant writ petition- is filed by Sri Badung Debbarma, an unemployed youth, belonging to Scheduled Tribe Community, for a direction to the respondent-Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council, ('TTAADC') and its Deputy Chief Executive Officer, the respondent No.2 herein, for allowing him to join in the post of Research Officer (Plan) on the basis of offer of appointment dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure P2 to the writ petition) issued to him and also to pass an interim order restraining the respondents from taking any step in filling up the aforesaid post. 2. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-TTAADC. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner has made an application for the post of Research Officer (Plan) in the TTAADC in response to an advertisement published in the local daily newspaper. The respondent-authorities considering the requisite minimum education qualification and after taking note of other factors as required for filling up of the said post issued call letter in favour of the petitioner on 18.1.2010. The petitioner accordingly appeared before the Interview Board on 28.1.2010 and thereafter, on an overall satisfaction of the candidature and competence of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 issued the offer of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner to appoint him temporary basis-to the post of Research Officer (plan) under the TTAADC on a fixed pay basis @ Rs. 10,810 per month in the pay band-3 Rs. 9570-30000 plus grade pay Rs. 3,100 with certain terms and conditions made thereunder. 4. In Item 9 of the offer of appointment letter, it was specifically stated that if the candidate accepted the offer on the above terms and conditions, he/she should communicate his/her acceptance to the offer by 10.12.2010 positively to the office of the undersigned along with all required documents/declarations as specified in item Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the offer of appointment letter, if no reply was received within the said stipulated date the offer of appointment would automatically be cancelled. 5. 3, 4 and 5 of the offer of appointment letter, if no reply was received within the said stipulated date the offer of appointment would automatically be cancelled. 5. According to the petitioner, on receiving of the said offer of appointment letter, Annexure P2 to the writ petition, the petitioner submitted his acceptance of offer of appointment letter on 10.12.2010 to the respondent No.2 enclosing all his testimonials, but in spite of receipt of the same, the respondent-TTAADC did not issue the appointment letter to the petitioner for joining in the said post of Research Officer (Plan). Hence the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 6. The respondent-TTAADC by filing their counter-affidavit denied all the allegations of the petitioner stating, inter alia, that the petitioner did not submit any communication of his acceptance to the offer of appointment letter and as such, the said offer of appointment stood cancelled automatically. Further, as per decision of the 23rd meeting of the Council of the 13th Executive Committee held on 11.2.2011, the said post of Research Officer (Plan) for which the petitioner was selected, was discontinued, due to financial stringency. The respondents also contended in the counter-affidavit that the logic advanced by the petitioner for possession of a Gate Pass would ipso facto not prove that he submitted his acceptance to the offer of appointment letter on 10.12.2010. 7. Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner while urging for relief sought for, has referred to the Gate Pass issued by the respondent authority in favour of the petitioner on 10.12.2010 and contended that the said Gate Pass itself is the proof of submission of the letter of acceptance by the petitioner to the offer of appointment letter. He also tried to convince this court that the respondent authority concerned took a decision of discontinuation of the post in question after the acceptance letter was submitted by the petitioner, which would be evident from the relevant records if produced by the respondent authority, though he fairly submits that the creation as well as abolition of the post is within the domain of the executive authority, i.e., the employer concerned. 8. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TTAADC while resisting the submissions of Mr. 8. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TTAADC while resisting the submissions of Mr. Deb, would contend that even after surveying the contention of the whole writ petition, the respondents did not get any proof from which a reasonable person can come to a conclusion that the petitioner submitted his letter of acceptance to the offer of appointment letter. According to Mr. Majumder, though admittedly the petitioner was issued offer of appointment letter for the post of Research Officer (Plan) after due process of selection, but his case is mainly based upon on the Gate Pass issued on 10.12.2010 and possession of such a Gate Pass would not ipso facto prove that the petitioner submitted any communication in regard to his acceptance to the offer of appointment letter for the post of Research Officer (Plan). 9. Mr. Mazumder further contended that from a Gate Pass, a reasonable person would be in a position to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has entered into the premises of the office of the respondent No.1, but from that, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner submitted his letter of acceptance to the offer of appointment to the authority concerned to whom he had to submit the same. 10. Further contention of Mr. Mazumder is that issuance of offer of appointment letter does not create any right in favour of the recipient of the offer of appointment. More so, even after issuance of offer of appointment letter also, the authority has the right not to proceed with the selection for a valid reason. In the instant case the authority found that none of the selected persons submitted any communication to their acceptance of offer of appointment letters within the stipulated period. Therefore, considering the fact of their unwillingness and also taking note of the financial position, which does not support for continuation of the post of Research Officer (Plan), the respondent-authorities took a decision for discontinuation of the said post and also not to give any new appointment. 11. Mr. Majumder in terms of the order of this court dated 5.4.2011 has placed the relevant file being No.F.2 (361)/ADC/Estt/07 to support his contention. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant pleadings and the aforesaid file placed by Mr. 11. Mr. Majumder in terms of the order of this court dated 5.4.2011 has placed the relevant file being No.F.2 (361)/ADC/Estt/07 to support his contention. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant pleadings and the aforesaid file placed by Mr. Majumder, this court is of considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to prove his case, inter alia, that the petitioner has submitted any communication of his acceptance to the offer of appointment letter for the post of Research Officer (plan) within the stipulated period, i.e., on or before 10.12.2010. 13. This court is of further opinion that from the Gate Pass as annexed by the petitioner to the writ petition, it does not prove that he has submitted any communication of his acceptance to the offer of appointment letter, rather from the said Gate Pass, at best, it can be presumed that the petitioner has entered into the premises of the TTAADC, but mere entry into the said premises is not enough to prove that he has submitted his communication to the acceptance of offer of appointment letter. To prove the aforesaid facts that he has submitted his letter of acceptance to the offer of appointment letter, the petitioner has to submit the relevant record of receipt from the respective authority to prove that he has submitted his acceptance to the offer of appointment letter. Admittedly, the same is missing in the instant case. Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner also in his usual fairness while urging for the relief submitted that the said document is not available and the petitioner also did not make any contention in the writ petition to that aspect. 14. By this time, it is settled position that the creation as well as abolition of any post is within the domain of the employer concerned. A job seeker has no right to force the employer concerned either for creation a post or for continuation of a post against their willingness. In the instant case, the respondents-authorities took a consensus (sic) decision for discontinuation of the post of Research Officer (Plan) as the financial condition of the respondents is precarious. A job seeker has no right to force the employer concerned either for creation a post or for continuation of a post against their willingness. In the instant case, the respondents-authorities took a consensus (sic) decision for discontinuation of the post of Research Officer (Plan) as the financial condition of the respondents is precarious. Not only that it appears from Note No.7 in the aforesaid file, which was approved subsequently by the Chief Executive Member on 5.1.2011, wherein it has been noted, inter alia, "if the candidates have not accepted the appointment, it may be treated as their unwillingness to join. There is no need to wait any further as our fund position to bear additional salary burden is not healthy. In such precarious financial condition, no new appointments may be given". 15. From the aforesaid note, it may be easily presumed that the aforesaid decision was taken only to debar the present petitioner from joining in the post in question, rather the respondents-authorities is not going to make any new appointment considering of their financial condition. 16. As it is the admitted position that the petitioner was not appointed, rather, only offer of appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, according to this court, before joining the post on the basis of the offer of appointment, like the petitioner, the employer concerned has the right to even cancel the offer of appointment subject to they can show the proper reason for taking such action. 17. In view of the above discussion, the instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.