Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard two appeals arising from separate proceedings before the Delhi High Court and the Kerala High Court, both involving substantially overlapping questions of law: the right of an employee to withdraw a tendered resignation and the effect of ratification, by the competent authority, of an otherwise unauthorised acceptance of resignation. In the first matter, the respondent, B.S. Rawat, was appointed as Assistant Registrar (Legal) at Delhi Technological University (DTU) under the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009. He tendered his resignation on 19 May 2016, to take effect from 1 September 2016, but later sought waiver of the notice period. The then Vice‑Chancellor, holding additional charge, accepted the resignation on 25 May 2016, and the respondent was relieved on 31 May 2016. Four months later, he sought to withdraw his resignation, arguing that it had neither been accepted nor ratified by the Board of Management, the competent authority under Section 23(2)(ix) of the Act. The Board of Management ratified the acceptance on 26 September 2016, and the request for withdrawal was rejected. The respondent filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. A Single Judge quashed the orders and directed reinstatement with full back wages and interest at 9% per annum. On appeal, the Division Bench affirmed reinstatement but denied back wages, noting the respondent had taken up gainful employment in the interim. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court: DTU challenged reinstatement (Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024), and the respondent sought back wages (Civil Appeal No. 9309 of 2024). In the second matter, after resigning from DTU, the respondent joined the National Institute of Technology, Calicut (NITC) as Deputy Registrar. He submitted a conditional resignation on 8 November 2018, then an unconditional one, while requesting permission to withdraw before relieving. The resignation was accepted on 22 November 2018, and he was to be relieved on 11 January 2019. Before that date, he sought withdrawal upon securing a deputation with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation; the request was rejected on 7 January 2019, and he was relieved on 11 January 2019. The respondent filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. The Single Judge declared the acceptance and rejection orders illegal and granted reinstatement with notional continuity but no back wages. On cross‑appeals, the Division Bench set aside the reinstatement entirely and dismissed the respondent’s claim for back wages. Aggrieved, the respondent filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 625‑626 of 2021. Before the Supreme Court, DTU argued through counsel that the Vice‑Chancellor’s acceptance of resignation, though by an officer holding additional charge, was duly ratified by the Board of Management and that the respondent could not withdraw after being relieved. The respondent, appearing in person, contended that resignation was never validly accepted by the competent authority and that ratification could not cure the initial lack of jurisdiction. NITC relied on Statute 30 of its First Statutes, which provides that resignation is effective only upon acceptance, and the request to withdraw was rightly rejected. The Supreme Court framed two points for determination: (i) whether acceptance of resignation by an officer holding additional charge, not the competent authority, stood validated by subsequent ratification of the Board of Management; and (ii) whether the Kerala High Court Division Bench was justified in upholding the acceptance of resignation and rejecting the withdrawal request. The judgment text provided does not include the final analysis or decision of the Supreme Court, and therefore the operative holding and directions remain unstated.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Resignation and Withdrawal - Right to withdraw resignation before acceptance - Delhi Technological University Act, 2009, Sections 23(2)(ix), 53; Statute 30 of NIT First Statutes, 2009 - The case involved the question whether an employee could unilaterally withdraw a resignation before acceptance by the competent authority, and whether ratification of an unauthorised acceptance could validate the act. The Delhi High Court had reinstated the respondent while denying back wages; the Kerala High Court upheld the acceptance. The Supreme Court was seized of these intertwined issues. (Paras 1, 15) B) Administrative Law - Ratification - Effect of ratification of acts by competent authority - Delhi Technological University Act, 2009, Section 23(2)(ix) - The issue was whether the subsequent ratification by the Board of Management could cure the defect in the acceptance of resignation by the Vice-Chancellor holding additional charge, who was not the competent authority. The respondent contended the acceptance was void ab initio and incapable of ratification. The Court examined the legal validity of such ratification. (Paras 5, 6, 15) C) Service Law - Back Wages - Entitlement to back wages upon reinstatement - The Delhi High Court denied back wages while directing reinstatement, leading to cross appeals on this point. The Supreme Court considered the employee’s conduct and gainful employment in the interregnum as factors bearing on the claim. (Paras 7, 12)
Issue of Consideration
the right of an employee to withdraw a tendered resignation, and the effect of ratification, by the competent authority, of an otherwise unauthorised acceptance of resignation
Law Points
- the right of an employee to withdraw a tendered resignation
- and the effect of ratification
- by the competent authority
- of an otherwise unauthorised acceptance of resignation
