ANITA PRIYADARSHINI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(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 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.) 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.