Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 870

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Delhi Technological University - Appellant
Versus
B.S. Rawat - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024 With Civil Appeal No.9309 of 2024 and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.625-626 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Adv. Mr. Atik Gill, Adv. Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Adv. Mr. Ankit Roy, AOR Ms. Mrinalini Ramesh, Adv. Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Caveator-in-person, AOR Mr. Ankit Roy , AOR Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Adv. Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Adv. Mr. Atik Gill, Adv. Mr. Shyam Padman, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaimon Andrews, Adv. Mr. Piyo Harold J, Adv. Ms. Ashwathy Shyam, Adv. Mr. Firdouse C P, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR

Unauthorized acceptance of resignation is validated by subsequent ratification through the doctrine of relation-back. Additionally, an employee is estopped from withdrawing a resignation once it is consummated through conduct, such as accepting relieving benefits and securing alternative employment.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Resignation - Authority - Doctrine of Ratification - Ratification by the competent authority of an act initially performed without authority relates back to the date of the original act, curing the defect of authority and rendering it valid from its inception. (Paras 18-19)

(B) Service Law - Resignation - Consummation of Transaction - Estoppel by Conduct - Where an employee has requested waiver of notice, accepted relieving orders, utilized service benefits, and secured new employment, they are precluded by the doctrine of approbation and reprobation from later impugning the resignation based on technical infirmities in the authority of the accepting official. (Paras 20-24)

(C) Service Law - Resignation - Withdrawal - Effectiveness - Where regulations prescribe that a resignation takes effect upon acceptance, and the competent authority has exercised its discretion to reject a request for withdrawal, such decision is final unless shown to be perverse or mala fide. (Paras 27-29)

Facts of the case:
Employees across two instances tendered resignations, seeking accelerated relief from their duties. In both cases, the resignations were accepted by officials whose authority was disputed. Following their relief, the employees sought to withdraw their resignations after securing or attempting to secure alternative employment. The institutions contended that the resignations were validly accepted and that the employees had acted upon these acceptances, while the employees challenged the validity of the resignation acceptance on grounds of authority and procedure.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the lack of authority in the initial accepting officer was rectified by the subsequent ratification by the competent board, satisfying the doctrine of relation-back. Furthermore, the court held that principles of estoppel prevent an employee from treating a resignation as valid for the purpose of obtaining benefits, yet invalid for the purpose of seeking reinstatement after voluntarily ceasing work.

Issues: (i) Whether unauthorized acceptance of a resignation can be validated by subsequent ratification by the competent authority; (ii) Whether an employee, having acted upon a resignation and accepted its benefits, is estopped from withdrawing the same based on a challenge to the appointing authority's power.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that ratification is equivalent to prior command, making the unauthorized act valid from the beginning. It further established that a resignation becomes a consummated transaction when the parties have acted upon it, precluding a unilateral withdrawal after the employee has secured intervening benefits or new employment.

Result: Appeals allowed; the decision to reinstate is set aside.

Table of Content
1. identification of legal issues regarding resignation withdrawal and ratification. (Para 1)
2. factual matrix of the delhi technological university resignation dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. factual matrix of the national institute of technology calicut resignation dispute. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. summary of contentions regarding competent authority for resignation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. determination of the competent authority for accepting employee resignations. (Para 15 , 16)
6. doctrine of ratification and consummation of resignation by conduct. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. effectiveness of resignation rules and administrative discretion in withdrawal. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. final orders and disposition of the civil appeals. (Para 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. These two appeals, though arising out of the separate proceedings before the two different High Courts, involve substantially overlapping questions of law, namely 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.

FACTUAL MATRIX

CIVIL APPEAL ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI

2. Delhi Technological University (DTU), formerly known as Delhi College of Engineering was given the status of a University vide Delhi Technological University Act, 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Government of Delhi after obtaining prior approval of the Chancellor (Lieutenant Governor of Delhi) in exercise of powers under Section 30 read with Section 31(1) of the 2009 Act, notified Statutes of Delhi Technological University (First) Statutes, 2009. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Vice-Chancellor of DTU offered the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal) to the respondent. On 23.08.2010, the respondent joined DTU as the Assistant Registrar (Legal). By the Delhi Technological University (Amendment) Act, 2012, Section 22 of the 2009 Act was amended creating the post of a Chairperson to be nominated by the Chancellor to head the Board of Management (BOM), and Section 53 was inserted empowering the Chancellor to issue such directions as may be necessary or expedient in the interest of administration. Section 23(2)(ix) vests in the BOM the power to appoint persons to teaching, administrative and ministerial posts.

3. The BOM in its meeting held on 27.05.2015, for the smooth functioning of DTU, delegated all its powers to the Vice Chancellor until the appointment of a Chairman for the BOM. The then Vice-Chancellor of DTU tendered his resignation and was relieved with effect from 23.09.2015. The Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi who is the Chancellor of the University in exercise of powers under Section 53 of the 2009 Act, assigned additional charge of the post of Vice-Chancellor of DTU to Professor Yogesh Singh, Director, Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology on 18.09.2015. He was appointed as a full-time, salaried Vice-Chancellor only with effect from 14.07.2016.

4. On 19.05.2016, the respondent tendered his resignation to take effect from 01.09.2016, the intervening period being treated as advance notice. He thereafter sought waiver of the notice period and requested acceptance of his resignation with effect from 31.05.2016. By a memo dated 25.05.2016, the then Vice-Chancellor, holding additional charge, accepted the resignation with effect from 31.05.2016, and the respondent was relieved. Accordingly, his no-dues certificate, last pay certificate and experience certificate were issued which were accepted by him.

5. On 22.09.2016, four months after being relieved, the respondent addressed a letter to DTU seeking withdrawal of his resignation, contending that it had neither been accepted nor been ratified by the BOM, the competent authority under Section 23(2)(ix) of the Act. The 20th meeting of the BOM held on 26.09.2016, ratified the acceptance of the resignation, and by an order dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 870

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe, JJ.Delhi Technological University - AppellantVersusB.S. Rawat - RespondentCivil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024 With Civil Appeal No.9309 of 2024 and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.625-626 of 2021Decided On : 04-08-2026

Cases Referred (14)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Delhi Technological University - Appellant
Versus
B.S. Rawat - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024 With Civil Appeal No.9309 of 2024 and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.625-626 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2026