IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.680 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 03, 2009 Dr. Nirlep Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Letter dated 8.12.2008 (Annexure P-11). The Department, at the time of selection, had sought places of preference from the petitioner. Prayer further has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot a station to the petitioner of her choice, as per preferences given by the petitioner. CWP No.680 of 2009 [2] It has been pleaded that the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Physical Education College Cadre) for which the petitioner was selected vide Annexure P-1, which reads as under:- YOUR NAME IS UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT FOR APPOINTMENT AS PHYSICAL EDU. LECTURER AS RECOMMENDED BY PPSC IN FEBRUARY, 2006. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO SEND FOUR PREFERENCES OF COLLEGES FOR YOUR POSTING IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE. LATEST BY 6TH AUGUST, 2007. AFTER WHICH NO NOTICE OF ANY OPTION SHALL BE TAKEN. GOVERNMENT HOWEVER R ESERVES THE RIGHT TO POST YOU ANYWHERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE EXIGENCIES IF ANY.” It is the case of the petitioner that four preferences were given. The respondents, however, did not post the petitioner to either of the places. It is in this background that the writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that there was no vacant post at any of the places for which option had been given by the petitioner. The petitioner was required to join duties within 21 days of issuance of appointment letter. On request of the petitioner, the joining time was extended by four months. The petitioner, however, did not join duties and therefore, is no more an employee of the Government. I have considered the issue. Annexure P-1 makes it evident that although CWP No.680 of 2009 [3] options had been taken, the Government however reserves the right to post the petitioner anywhere in accordance with administrative exigencies. In this view of the matter, the petitioner could not have claimed a right to be posted at the place opted for. The petitioner did not join even though joining time was extended by four months. The respondent employer is not expected to give place of posting as per whims and choice of an employee, nor is required to wait for indefinite period for an employee to join. Considering the facts and circumstances given out, the petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 03, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?