Employee entitled to withdraw the notice given for resignation prior to the date of taking effect.

Jayasimha Babu, J.

1. The petitioner was employed as a teacher in the services of the first respondent school. He submitted a letter on 21-10-1994 to the school authorities stating that on account of his physical weakness, he was unable to continue in service as a physical Education Teacher in the School and that therefore he may be permitted to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 31-1-1995. The said request of the petitioner was accepted by the first respondent school Authorities as could be seen from the letter dated 22-10-1994 sent by the Correspondent of the first respondent to the petitioner, wherein it was stated that

".... we accept your request for voluntary retirement with effect from 31-1-1995 ..." *

Before 31st January, 1995 arrived, the petitioner changed his mind and he again wrote a letter on 21-12-1994 to the school authorities (first respondent) stating that he recovered from his illness and regained his lost strength, that he is physically and medically fit enough to do his work at school effectively and that therefore he may be permitted to withdraw his earlier application seeking voluntary retirement with immediate effect. This letter dated 21-12-1994, according to the respondents was not even signed by the petitioner. Nevertheless the respondents treated the said letter as a request from the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw his earlier request made for voluntary retirement. The first respondent school authorities sent a reply, dated 24th January, 1995 whereunder the petitioner was informed that under the relevant provisions of the Fundamental Rules applicable to the petitioner, the request for voluntary retirement or the withdrawal of the voluntary retirement after acceptance, as the case may be could be done with the approval of the appointing authority before the expiry of the period of notice and that being the appointing authority the school was not willing to approve the withdrawal of the earlier application submitted by the petitioner for voluntary retirement.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the said order dated 24-1-1995 and to direct the respondents to take him back in service. The petitioner has continued to be in service even after 31st January, 1995 by reason of the interim direction given by this Court.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which it is stated that a writ petition cannot lie against the first respondent school and that since the first respondent school authorities being the appointing authorities having chosen not to accept the withdrawal of the application seeking permission for voluntary retirement, the respondents cannot now be compelled to retain the petitioner in service.

4. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the objection of the first respondent with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition is wholly untenable, in view of the law declared by this Court in Association of University Teachers v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1990 Writ L.R. 51 (Supp.), wherein it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the educational institutions, receiving aid from the Government have the character of "The Authorities" and come within the scope of the definition of State in Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and that a writ petition as against such Institutions is maintainable. It is not in dispute that the first respondent school receives aid from the State. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents in this regard has therefore, to be overruled.

5. As regards the right asserted by the respondents to withhold their consent for the application for withdrawal of the letter of voluntary retirement, these contention of the respondents has also to be rejected in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India 1987 II CLR 412, wherein the Supreme Court held that once noti