SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Ker) 357

High Court of Kerala
K.K. Narendran, J.
C Moideenkutty Haji - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala & Ors - Respondent
O.P. No. 3883 of 1979
Decided On : 08-12-1980

A 'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and the acceptance of the resignation by the Manager did not preclude the withdrawal.

Headnote:

resignation - withdrawal of resignation - Kerala Education Rules, R.48 and 53 of Chap.14A - The court held that the petitioner had the right to withdraw his resignation before it was to take effect, even though the Manager of the school had accepted the resignation before it was withdrawn. The court referred to the principles of law and a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra to support its conclusion. The court set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner's revision and granted a declaration that he is entitled to continue as Headmaster of the school.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who was the Headmaster of a school, resigned from his post, but later withdrew the resignation. The Manager of the school had accepted the resignation before it was withdrawn. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his revision and sought a declaration to continue as Headmaster.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner had the right to withdraw his resignation before it was to take effect, and the acceptance of the resignation by the Manager did not preclude the withdrawal. The court set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner's revision and granted a declaration that he is entitled to continue as Headmaster of the school.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could withdraw his resignation after it was accepted by the Manager of the school.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of law and a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra to establish that a 'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and the acceptance of the resignation by the Manager did not preclude the withdrawal.

Final Decision: The court set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner's revision and granted a declaration that he is entitled to continue as Headmaster of the school.

JUDGMENT

K.K. Narendran, J.

1. From 1st May 1975 onwards the petitioner was the Headmaster of the A.M. L.P. School, Thoombathparamba, of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. On 5th July 1977 the petitioner sent Ext. P1 letter to the 4th respondent resigning from the post of Headmastership of the school with effect from 1st August 1977. The 4th respondent on 5th July 1977 itself accepted the petitioner's resignation. But on 28th July 1977 the petitioner sent Ext. P2 letter to the 4th respondent withdrawing Ext. P1 resignation and informing the 4th respondent that he proposes to continue as Headmaster of the school. The 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer by Ext. P3 proceedings dated 1st August 1977 approved the petitioner's resignation from the post of Headmaster with effect from 1st August 1977 and also approved the appointment of the 5th respondent as Headmaster of the school. In view of Ext. P3 the petitioner handed over charge as Headmaster of the school to the 5th respondent. But the petitioner filed an appeal to the 2nd responds District Educational Officer, Tirur against Ext. P3 order. The 2nd respondent District Educational Officer rejected that appeal by Ext. P4. The petitioner challenged Ext. P4 in a revision before the 1st respondent State. The 1st respondent by Ext. P5 rejected the petitioner's revision holding: "The petitioner has no claim that he had withdrawn his resignation letter before the Manager's acceptance of the same and the moment the Manager, who was the appointing authority accepted the relinquishment the act of relinquishment became final, and the petitioner was precluded from saying that he wanted to withdraw his request". The petitioner then challenged Exts. P3, P4 and P5 by this original petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that he is entitled to continue as Headmaster of the 4th respondent's school.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent State. It is stated in para 3 that on the acceptance of the resignation, the relinquishment by the petitioner of his post of Headmaster has become final and hence the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, withdraw his resignation. It is also pointed out that as the petitioner has tendered his resignation voluntarily and it was accepted by the appointing authority the provisions contained in R.48 and 53 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules has no application. In para 4 it is stated that as the petitioner has admitted that he was relieved from the post of Headmaster as per orders of the Assistant Educational Officer, the contention that the previous approval of the Educational Officer was not there before he was relieved is not correct.

3. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner can withdraw his resignation before it takes effect even though the Manager of the school accepted the petitioner's resignation before the same was withdrawn. There are different kinds of resignations; some resignations are with immediate effect while other resignations are meant to take effect from a future date. In the case of the latter, the question is whether anybody can validly prevent the person who submitted the resignation from withdrawing the same before the date on which it is to take effect. It goes without saying that on basic principles of law an author of a resignation has the right to withdraw the same before it is to take effect. The fact that the authority who is to accept the resignation, accepted the same before the date of withdrawal is immaterial if the withdrawal was made before the resignation was to take effect. This right of the person who resigns with effect from a future date will be there always.

4. In coming to the above conclusion I am supported by a decision of the supreme Court in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra AIR 1978 SC 694 wherein it is said:

''The general principle regarding resignation is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutiona




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top