The main legal point established in the judgment is that a resignation by an employee normally requires acceptance by the employer to be effective, and any subsequent attempt to accept a disapproved resignation is deemed an afterthought and an exercise in futility.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has come up with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondents, respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 in particular to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner with effect from december 1997 onwards along with interest thereon and also for quashing of the proceedings undertaken by respondent No. 4 for making appointment on the post of clerk in the institution which post is occupied by the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE institution in question is a Sanskirit Madavidyalaya affiliated to the Sampurnanand sanskirit University, Varanasi. The institution is on the grant in aid list of the State Government and the post of clerk has been created in the institution vide government orders referred to in the writ petition. The post of clerk was advertised against which the petitioner was appointed by the resolution of the committee of management dated 19. 9. 1982. There was some dispute in the institution in the year 1990 which subsided. However, the dispute again arose in the year 1995 and the petitioner under duress submitted a letter of resignation dated 9. 11. 1995 which letter has been appended as Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the said letter of resignation which was tendered under duress by the petitioner and was not accepted by the committee of management and was disapproved which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12. 3. 1996 by the Manager of the institution. This document has been appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, and about which recital has been made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. The respondent management on the other hand has filed a counter affidavit and have come up with a plea that the said resignation was placed before the committee of management on 6. 8. 1996 wherein it was resolved that the committee of management is left with no option but to accept the resignation of the petitioner. It is further important to note that in reply to the contents of the paragraph 9 of the writ petition wherein the petitioner has clearly stated that his resignation has been disapproved, has not been denied by the management in its reply contained in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit. Th issuance of the letter dated 12. 3. 1996 by the manager and the genuineness of the said document appended as annexure-6 has neither been disputed nor it has been rebutted. An altogether new stand of accepting the resignation on 6. 8. 1996 has been set up in the counter affidavit.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid on going dispute with regard to the continuance of the petitioner in office and the payment of salary engaged the attention of the educational authorities as well. For this various documents have been filed by the petitioners, which are on record. The Regional Deputy director of Education, Agra on 9th November 1998 passed an order directing the Deputy director of Education, Mathura to ensure the payment of salary to the petitioner after making inspection of the institution which document is appended as Annexure-18 to the writ petition. This is followed by another order dated 22. 10. 1998 which is Annexure-19 to the writ petition. The respondent authorities have field counter affidavit through the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Mathura wherein details of inquiry conducted in this regard have been stated in paragraph 8 of the said counter affidavit. It has been further narrated in the counter affidavit that the committee of management illegally proceeded to advertise the post treating the petitioner to have been terminated from his services and as such directions were issued not to proceed to make any appointment. The committee of management, however, in defianes thereto proceeded to make appointment on the post whereupon the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

( 4 ) THIS Court passed an order on 31. 5. 2000 to the effect that in case any appointment is made by the respondents, the same shall be subject t