IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
B.S. Rawat - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Technological University - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 2611 of 2019, Civil Miscellaneous No. 29427, 41062 of 2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021
The Vice-Chancellor holding additional charge is not competent to exercise statutory powers vested in a full-fledged incumbent of the post. The resignation tendered by the Petitioner was not accepted by a Competent Authority and was thus non-est in the eyes of law. Once the resignation was not validly accepted, it was open to the Petitioner to withdraw the same and, therefore, the order rejecting the request of the Petitioner for withdrawal of the resignation is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner joined DTU as Assistant Registrar w.e.f. 09.09.2010 and was taken on strength against a sanctioned post vide order dated 29.10.2010. Vide letter dated 19.05.2016, Petitioner tendered his resignation on the ground that he was no more interested to work as an Assistant Registrar with the Respondent. Another letter dated 23.05.2016 was submitted by the Petitioner seeking waiver of advance notice period and acceptance of resignation with effect from 31.05.2016. Consequently, Petitioners resignation was accepted by the Competent Authority and he was relieved from services of the Respondent on 31.05.2016, waiving the notice period, as requested by the Petitioner and, therefore, Petitioner can have no grievance in this regard.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the resignation tendered by the Petitioner was not accepted by a Competent Authority and was thus non-est in the eyes of law. Once the resignation was not validly accepted, it was open to the Petitioner to withdraw the same and, therefore, the order rejecting the request of the Petitioner for withdrawal of the resignation is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Vice-Chancellor holding additional charge is competent to exercise statutory powers vested in a full-fledged incumbent of the post? 2. Whether the resignation tendered by the Petitioner was accepted by a Competent Authority?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Vice-Chancellor holding additional charge is not competent to exercise statutory powers vested in a full-fledged incumbent of the post. 2. The resignation tendered by the Petitioner was not accepted by a Competent Authority.
Final Decision: Writ petition is allowed. Order dated 25.05.2016, whereby the resignation tendered by the Petitioner was accepted as well as order dated 31.05.2016, whereby Petitioner was relieved and order dated 03.11.2016, whereby the request of the Petitioner for withdrawal of resignation was rejected, are quashed and set aside. Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service within a period of four weeks from today. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including continuity of service. Petitioner shall also be entitled to full back-wages along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date he was relieved from the services of the Respondent till the date of reinstatement, except for the period he was gainfully employed.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a declaration that a Vice-Chancellor holding additional charge is not competent to exercise statutory powers. Petitioner also seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 25.05.2016, whereby resignation of the Petitioner was accepted and the consequential order dated 31.05.2016, relieving the Petitioner from his duties. Challenge is also laid to order dated 03.11.2016, whereby request of the Petitioner for withdrawal of resignation was rejected by the Respondent.
2. Brief narrative of facts, as set out in the writ petition, is that Petitioner joined as Assistant Registrar with the Respondent/Delhi Technological University on 23.08.2010. On 19.05.2016, Petitioner tendered his resignation, which was accepted by Professor Yogesh Singh on 22.05.2016 and a formal order was issued on 25.05.2016. Professor Yogesh Singh had assumed additional charge as a Vice-Chancellor of Respondent University on 24.09.2015. Petitioner was thereafter relieved from the services of the Respondent on 31.05.2016. On 14.07.2016, Professor Yogesh Singh joined as a whole-time salaried Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent University.
3. Petitioner withdrew his resignation on 22.09.2016, on the ground that the same was neither accepted nor ratified by the Competent Authority. Vide order dated 03.11.2016, request of the Petitioner for withdrawal of resignation was rejected by the Respondent and aggrieved by the said action, Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
4. Resignation tendered by the Petitioner was not accepted by the Competent Authority and there being no acceptance in the eyes of law, resignation could be legally withdrawn by the Petitioner. As per Section 23(2)(ix) of the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as DTU Act), the Board of Management (hereinafter referred to as BOM) has the power to appoint persons to teaching, administrative and ministerial posts. Under Statute 10(2)(i) of the Delhi Technological University (First) Statutes, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as First Statutes), BOM is empowered to make appointments of non-teaching staff, as may be necessary, on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. Therefore, by virtue of both these statutory provisions, Competent Authority to accept resignation is only the BOM, i.e. Appointing Authority and a person holding additional charge as Vice-Chancellor had no power to accept the resignation of the Petitioner. In a nutshell, the contention is that it is only the Appointing Authority, which is competent to accept resignation and thus, the order accepting resignation of the Petitioner is without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
5. Reading of the impugned order dated 25.05.2016 reflects that the resignation was allegedly accepted by the Vice-Chancellor and Chairman, BOM, which is incorrect, since Professor Yogesh Singh was neither the Vice-Chancellor nor the Chairman, BOM on the date of acceptance of the resignation. As per amended Section 22(2) of the DTU Act, amended vide Section 2 of the DTU (Amendment) Act, 2012, Chairperson of the BOM is to be nominated by the Chancellor and shall be an eminent educationalist/scientist/engineer/technologist/industrialist. In the present case, Chancellor had not nominated Professor Yogesh Singh as a Chairperson of the BOM and thus, he had no authority to accept the resignation.
6. Reference to the acceptance of resignation by a Vice-Chancellor in the impugned order is also per se false and illegal, inasmuch as Professor Yogesh Singh was not a Vice-Chancellor on the date of acceptance of resignation, i.e. 22.05.2016. Under Statute 3(B)(1) of the First Statutes, Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time salaried officer of the University. Professor Yogesh Singh had joined as a whole-time salaried Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent only on 14.07.2016, i.e. after the date of acceptance
Hindustan Tin Works P Ltd. vs. Employees
and Uday Narain Pandey U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya
Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh
Hindustan Tin Works P Ltd. vs. Employees Hindustan Tin Works P Ltd. vs. Employees
Hindustan Tin Works P Ltd. vs. Employees
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal (2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC L&S 651
Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula
Punjab National Bank vs. Shri P.K. Mittal (1989) 1 S.L.R. 596.
State of Orissa vs. Mamta Mohanty
Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Union of India and Ors. vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors.
The Vice-Chancellor holding additional charge is not competent to exercise statutory powers vested in a full-fledged incumbent of the post.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of following statutory procedures and the discretionary nature of the High Court's power under Article 226, highlighting the need for adherence to statutory pro....
Probationary employees possess statutory protections and cannot be terminated without following prescribed procedures under the governing statute, which mandates documented grounds for unsuitability ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant can withdraw their resignation before its acceptance, as provided under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants R....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a teacher's resignation should be made voluntarily, and if the employee withdraws such resignation, it is duly entitled to do so.
An employee's resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance even if made conditionally, as long as the relationship has not been severed.
A resignation cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.
In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with back wages is the norm unless the employer can prove the employee was gainfully employed during the termination period; the burden of proof lies w....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.