17. While we can understand the difficulty that the appellant may be faced with and do not doubt the bonafides of the appellant, the law works, at times, harshly. At the time when the appellant applied for and obtained leave to proceed abroad to undertake the Masters course at the MDACC, she herself agreed to the conditions subject to which leave was granted. The first condition was that her right to rejoin her services at the Institute would be subject to availability of a vacant post at that time. She was aware of the fact that her contract was coming to an end on 30 June 2023, which would be much before the completion of the Masters’ degree at the MDACC. She, therefore, had a chance, had she so desired, to rejoin the Institute prior to 30 June 2023. She did not choose to do so. Instead, she addressed a representation to the Institute on 22 June 2023. Even in the said representation, the appellant did not express any unequivocal intention to rejoin the services of the Institute. Instead, she sought for permission to rejoin the Institute after completion of her course at the MDACC. By that time, she was well aware that her contract with the Institute would come to an end. By, therefore, seeking permission to rejoin the services of the Institute after the expiry of her tenure in the MDACC, the appellant exposed herself to the possibility of the vacancy not remaining unfilled at that point of time.
