ORDER : CMP-T No. 2521 of 2019 1. The amendment sought by way of the instant application has been necessitated as a result of development that has taken place during the pendency of the petition. Thus, the amendment as prayed, is allowed. CWPOA No. 5698 of 2019 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief: (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the benefit of counting of service rendered by the applicant as Lecturer, Sociology, (School Cadre) w.e.f. 12.11.1999 upto the date of his joining as Assistant Professor, Sociology (College Cadre) and he may also be allowed protection of pay last drawn by him as Lecturer ((School Cadre) on the joining the new post of Assistant Professor, Sociology (College Cadre), Class-I, (Gazetted) for all service benefits. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Sociology (School Cadre) on 12.11.1999. Petitioner accepted the appointment and worked in the said capacity. On 22.7.2014, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission invited applications for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre), Class-I (Gazetted) (on contract basis), in the subject of Sociology. Petitioner applied and participated in the selection process. On 22.6.2015, result of successful candidates was declared. Petitioner was also selected for the post of Assistant Professor, Sociology (College Cadre). 4. Petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Sociology (College Cadre), vide notification dated 15.9.2015, requiring him to join at Govt. College, Seraj at Lambathach within seven days from the date of notification. 5. Petitioner after declaration of the list of successful candidates on 22.6.2015 by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, had made a representation to the Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh for protection of his salary. The representation of petitioner remained undecided and in the meantime, the offer of appointment dated 15.9.2015, as noted above, was made to him. 6. Petitioner, instead of accepting the appointment, approached the H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 3551 of 2015 by presentation of the petition on 21.9.2015. In the Original Application, petitioner had made prayer for interim relief in the following terms: “8. 6. Petitioner, instead of accepting the appointment, approached the H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 3551 of 2015 by presentation of the petition on 21.9.2015. In the Original Application, petitioner had made prayer for interim relief in the following terms: “8. Interim Relief, if prayed for: That during the pendency of the present Original Application, the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the joining time of the applicant which is going to expire on 22.9.2015, or in the alternative the respondents may be ordered to keep one post vacant for the applicant during the pendency of the Original Application.” 7. On 22.9.2015, while considering the prayer for interim relief, learned Tribunal passed the following order: “4. Prayer for interim relief can be considered only to the extent that the respondents/competent authority may consider to extend the time for joining by the applicant as Assistant Professor (College Cadre) on contract, for which deadline is expiring as on today (22.9.2015), by another week, or say upto 30th September, 2015. Ordered accordingly. The prayer of the applicant for pay protection as embodied in representation dated 6.7.2015 submitted by him to the Secretary (in fact Additional Chief Secretary) (Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh may also be considered by the competent authority in accordance with rules/law within a reasonable timeframe, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, if so desired.” 8. This order came to be extended from time to time. In this sequence, on 02.03.2016 order was again extended till next date of hearing i.e. 31.3.2016. Thereafter, no order came to be passed on the interim application of petitioner. Be that as it may, learned Tribunal had not issued any positive command directing the respondents to extend the time for joining. 9. On 23.02.2016, the Additional Chief Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, issued notification whereby the offer of appointment made to the petitioner was withdrawn on account of his failure to join within stipulated time. Petitioner, by way of amendment in the petition, has sought additional relief in following terms: “(i) (a) The impugned notification dated 23.2.2016 issued by the respondent No. 1, Annexure A-9 may kindly be quashed and set-aside, qua the applicant.” 10. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. 11. Petitioner, by way of amendment in the petition, has sought additional relief in following terms: “(i) (a) The impugned notification dated 23.2.2016 issued by the respondent No. 1, Annexure A-9 may kindly be quashed and set-aside, qua the applicant.” 10. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. 11. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he is entitled for the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22 (I) (a) (1) with respect to protection of his pay and also Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension Rules), 1972 for counting of past service as Lecturer (School Cadre). It has further been submitted that without deciding his representation, the order of withdrawal of appointment dated 23.2.2016 is wrong, illegal and needs to be set-aside. 12. Once the petitioner did not accept the offer of appointment made to him, he lost whatever cause of action he had to agitate his claim by way of present petition. The relief of protection of pay and entitlement to past service benefits have lost relevance with the decision of petitioner not to accept the offer of appointment. 13. The challenge to the withdrawal of offer of appointment laid by petitioner is also without merit. Petitioner consciously had opted to participate in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the subject of Sociology after having gone through the terms of advertisement inviting applications. No promise was held out in the advertisement to the persons already in employment as regards any benefits being available to them in lieu of their past employment. 14. In order to claim benefit of Fundamental Rule 22 (I) (a) (1), petitioner was required to atleast accept the appointment. Further, to claim benefit of Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension Rules), 1972, he had to tender resignation as minimum requirement. Had he accepted the offer of appointment, he may have continued to have the cause of action. 15. The respondents could not have waited for the petitioner in perpetuity. Despite petitioner having claimed interim relief, he had failed to achieve the desired result, meaning thereby, that even the learned Tribunal had not considered it to be a proper case to grant interim relief to petitioner. 15. The respondents could not have waited for the petitioner in perpetuity. Despite petitioner having claimed interim relief, he had failed to achieve the desired result, meaning thereby, that even the learned Tribunal had not considered it to be a proper case to grant interim relief to petitioner. As regards, the plea of petitioner with respect to non-consideration of his representation, in our considered view, it cannot be a ground to quash and set-aside the notification dated 23.2.2016 whereby the respondents had withdrawn the offer of appointment. Petitioner could not have put pre-conditions for his appointment to the employer. The respondents were under no legal obligation to have decided the representation of petitioner before withdrawal of the offer of appointment. As a matter of fact, the representation was made by petitioner even prior to the offer of appointment was extended to him and in such representation, he had only sought consideration for the protection of his pay in the previous cadre. There was no mention of the entitlement of petitioner to the benefit, if any, under Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension Rules), 1972, therefore, petitioner cannot be allowed to have this grievance by way of instant petition. 16. Accordingly, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, with no orders as to cost.