2026:UHC:253 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/18/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Ms. Irum Zeba, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate for Union of India. Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 2. Petitioner is employed with Wildlife Institute of India at Dehradun. He participated in a selection held by National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities (NIEPVD), Dehradun and after being selected, he was offered appointment as Lower Division Clerk in NIEPVD vide order dated 02.06.2025. 3. Since petitioner did not accept the appointment offered to him by NIEPVD, therefore the offer of appointment is cancelled vide order dated 23.12.2025. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel appearing for NIEPVD submits that petitioner was asked to join duties in NIEPVD on or before 20.06.2025 and on his request, joining time was extended till 19.09.2025. She further submits that since petitioner did not report for duties and made 2026:UHC:253 representation for extending the joining time, therefore the joining time was further extended till 19.12.2025. She submits that despite two extensions in the joining time given to petitioner, he did not join duties, therefore the competent authority had no other option but to cancel the offer of appointment made to him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although petitioner had applied for resignation but since relieving order was not issued, therefore petitioner could not join in NIEPVD. 6. Mr. Vikas Pande, learned counsel appearing for Wildlife Institute of India submits that petitioner never tendered resignation and petitioner wanted technical resignation with certain condition and that too, he had not tendered any technical resignation also, therefore the competent authority in Wildlife Institute of India cannot be blamed and petitioner himself is to be blamed for whatever delay has happened in the matter. 7. This Court does not find any scope for interference in the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show the resignation, if any, tendered by petitioner. The letters submitted by petitioner on 28.05.2025 and 10.12.2025 cannot be termed as 2026:UHC:253 resignation. Unless petitioner tenders resignation, the employer cannot accept the same. 9. However, having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to make representation to the NIEPVD. 10. If he makes representation within 03 days from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by the Director, NIEPVD within 10 days thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.01.2026 Mahinder/