Delhi High Court
Anita Priyadarshini vs Uoi & Ors. on 26 November, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 7853/2011
% 26th November, 2013
ANITA PRIYADARSHINI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta and Mr. Umakant
Kataria, Advocate.
VERSUS
UOI & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Raman Oberoi, Sr. Panel
Counsel for R-1.
Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for R-3.
Mr. S.Rajappa and Mr. Puran Chand,
Advocates for R-4 and 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. Considerable
arguments were addressed by both the parties. The arguments were at the
stage of reference to the letters of the Ministry of Human Resource
Development dated 6.6.2013 and 11.11.2013.
2. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4
and 5/erstwhile employer-NIOS and Chairman of NIOS states that there is
no reason why the respondent no.4 would not favourably consider the
WPC 7853/2011 Page 1 of 6
technical resignation of the petitioner from NIOS w.e.f 5.10.2011, of course
without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions in this writ
petition, subject to the petitioner withdrawing any and every allegations
against the respondent no.5 made in this writ petition and elsewhere.
3. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner
has no hesitation to accept the suggestion which has been made on behalf of
respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the petitioner will now again seek a fresh
technical resignation from the respondent no.4 w.e.f 5.10.2011 stating
therein that the petitioner withdraws all allegations against respondent no.5
whether in this petition or otherwise. Of course, this is also without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner till the technical
resignation of the petitioner is accepted w.e.f 5.10.2011 and her consequent
appointment being confirmed with the respondent no.3/IGNOU and with
whom the petitioner is working.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3, however,
makes a statement before this Court that the appointment of the petitioner
has lapsed because the panel in question has already expired one year after
the offer made to the petitioner vide a letter dated 4.10.2011.
5. Therefore, there are two parts of this writ petition which have
to be disposed of. The first part is in terms of the statements made before
WPC 7853/2011 Page 2 of 6
me on behalf of the petitioner and respondent nos.4 and 5, and the second
part is with respect to reluctance of respondent no.3 to continue with the
appointment of the petitioner.
6. So far as the first aspect is concerned, the writ petition is
disposed of with the direction that petitioner will now make a specific
representation to the respondent no.4 for her technical resignation w.e.f
5.10.2011 with the respondent no.4, and which will be treated as in
continuation of the earlier requests made by the petitioner for technical
resignation from the services of the respondent no.4. This representation
will categorically state that petitioner withdraws all the allegations against
the respondent no.5 made in this writ petition or elsewhere and which will
take effect on the petitioner's technical resignation being favourably
considered by the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Accordingly, so far as the
petitioner and other respondents except respondent no.3 is concerned, this
writ petition is disposed of with the direction that petitioner in terms of this
order will within a period of two weeks make a representation to the
respondent nos. 4 and 5, and respondent nos.4 and 5 will favourably
consider the same for technical resignation of the petitioner from the
respondent no.4 w.e.f 5.10.2011. I may however clarify that with respect to
respondent no.3 I am passing a judgment on merits on the limited aspect as
WPC 7853/2011 Page 3 of 6
to whether petitioner's employment with respondent no.3 continue or comes
to an end on the alleged ground that the validity of the panel has expired
after one year.
7. So far as the contention urged on behalf of respondent
no.3/IGNOU is concerned, in my opinion, the contention of the panel having
expired is a misconceived contention. The contention is misconceived for
various reasons. Firstly, petitioner was in fact given an appointment vide
letter dated 4.10.2011 and the petitioner admittedly joined respondent no.3
w.e.f 5.10.2011, of course, subject to the one condition of petitioner giving
unconditional relieving order from the respondent no.4 to the respondent
no.3. The time for giving of this reliving order was extended by respondent
no.3 by means of communication dated 11.11.2011 up to 12.12.2011. By
the interim order of this Court dated 7.12.2011, i.e before 12.12.2011,
petitioner's services with the respondent no.3 were directed to be continued
and therefore effectively by a judicial order there is extension of time
beyond 12.12.2011 for giving by the petitioner to the respondent no.3 an
unconditional relieving order of the respondent no.4. I may also note at this
stage that petitioner has continued with employment of the respondent no.3
continuously from 5.10.2011 till date, and it is not as if some other person
has been appointed to the post where petitioner got employment with the
WPC 7853/2011 Page 4 of 6
respondent no.3. Further, in my opinion, the argument of lapsing of the
panel cannot have any meaning inasmuch as the petitioner did in fact join
the respondent no.3, was given an original time for giving of an
unconditional relieving order, that time was further extended up to
12.12.2011, and thereafter this Court passed the order dated 7.12.2011
continuing the services of the petitioner with the respondent no.3.
Therefore, it cannot be argued that the panel has come to an end and the
petitioner is not employed with the respondent no.3, inasmuch as, petitioner
already stands employed and is working with the respondent no.3.
Accordingly, I hold that the argument urged on behalf of respondent no.3
carries no substance and I really fail to understand this argument as of today
because I have not understood as to how this in any manner helps the
respondent no.3 with whom the petitioner is now working without any
complaint from 5.10.2011.
8. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the
direction that the petitioner will give the representation as mentioned in this
order to the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Interim orders of this Court will
continue till the decision which is passed by respondent nos.4 and 5 on the
representation of the petitioner for technical resignation w.e.f 5.10.2011 and
for 15 days thereafter. The request for technical resignation will be favorably
WPC 7853/2011 Page 5 of 6
considered by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 inasmuch as petitioner has
withdrawn the allegations in terms of the order passed today, and whether
such allegations were made in this writ petition or elsewhere against the
respondent no.5.
9. So far as the respondent no.3 is concerned, it is held that
respondent no.3's argument that the panel has lapsed and the petitioner does
not continue with her employment with the respondent no.3 is a
misconceived argument and accordingly rejected by holding that the
petitioner stands employed by respondent no.3, although only subject to
giving her relieving order from the respondent no.4. The respondent nos. 4
and 5 in terms of this order will pass an order with respect to technical
resignation of the petitioner from the respondent no.4 to the respondent no.3,
and which will be given after the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in terms of this
order will pass an order with respect to technical resignation of the petitioner
from the respondent no.4.
10. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Parties are left to bear
their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.
NOVEMBER 26, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
