Supreme Court Rules Ratification Validates Resignation Acceptance, Denies Reinstatement to B.S. Rawat - 2026-08-08

Supreme Court Rules Ratification Validates Resignation Acceptance, Denies Reinstatement to B.S. Rawat

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, delivered a decisive ruling on August 4, 2026, holding that ratification by a competent authority cures the defect of an unauthorized acceptance of resignation, and that employees cannot seek withdrawal once the resignation has been consummated by their own conduct.

The judgment, delivered in a batch of appeals arising from the Delhi and Kerala High Courts, settles conflicting views on two intertwined questions: whether an employee has an unqualified right to withdraw a tendered resignation, and what legal effect flows from the subsequent ratification of an otherwise unauthorized acceptance.

Two Resignations, One Legal Question

The first matter concerned B.S. Rawat , who joined the Delhi Technological University (DTU) as Assistant Registrar (Legal) on August 23, 2010. On May 19, 2016, Rawat tendered his resignation effective September 1, 2016, but within days sought waiver of the notice period, requesting acceptance from May 31, 2016 instead. The then Vice-Chancellor, Professor Yogesh Singh—who held only additional charge and was not the competent authority under Section 23(2)(ix) of the 2009 Act—accepted the resignation on May 25, 2016. Rawat was relieved, and he accepted his no-dues certificate, last pay certificate, and experience certificate.

Yet on September 22, 2016—nearly four months after his exit—Rawat sought to withdraw his resignation, arguing that the Board of Management, the true appointing authority, had never accepted it. The BOM ratified the acceptance on September 26, 2016, and rejected the withdrawal request on November 3, 2016. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages; the Division Bench affirmed reinstatement but denied back wages.

The second matter involved Rawat's subsequent employment. After leaving DTU, he joined the National Institute of Technology Calicut (NITC) as Deputy Registrar on February 8, 2017. He tendered an unconditional resignation on November 8, 2018, which was accepted on November 22, 2018. Following his selection on deputation to the East Delhi Municipal Corporation, he sought withdrawal on November 28, 2018—but the request was rejected on January 7, 2019 as opportunistic. The Kerala High Court upheld NITC's position.

The Doctrine of Ratification, Explained

The Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine of ratification—rooted in the maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur (subsequent ratification equals prior command)—applies squarely to such situations. The Court extracted six governing principles:

1. Ratification makes a previously invalid act valid;
2. It treats the act as though authority existed from the beginning;
3. It operates retrospectively, relating back to the original act;
4. Only the competent authority can ratify;
5. Express approval suffices without a fresh order;
6. It cures defects of authority, not inherently illegal acts.

"Once ratified, the acceptance related back to 25.05.2016, the date his resignation was accepted by the In-charge Vice-Chancellor, there was, in point of law, no resignation left in existence which he could have withdrawn on 22.09.2016," the Court observed.

No 'Cake and Eat It Too'

The Court employed the principle of approbation and reprobation to bar the employee's claim. A resignation may become a "consummated" transaction where both parties have treated it as final and altered their positions—drawing on Reichel v. Bishop of Oxford (1889) 14 AC 259, noted in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) 2 SCC 301.

"He cannot have his cake and eat it too, i.e. he cannot claim the benefits of a completed exit from DTU when it suited him to move on, and simultaneously claim that no exit ever legally occurred when it suits him to return," the Court said, noting Rawat had used his DTU experience certificate to secure the NITC appointment.

NITC Resignation: Acceptance Date Controls

On the Kerala matter, the Court upheld the proviso to Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009 , which provides that resignation "shall take effect only on the date on which the resignation is accepted by the appointing authority." Since acceptance occurred on November 22, 2018 , the resignation was effective from that date—the notice period only regulated the relieving date, not the acceptance itself. The refusal to permit withdrawal, recorded in the order dated January 7, 2019 , was held to be "a plausible and rational view" warranting no judicial interference.

Key Observations

"Ratification operates retrospectively. It relates back to the date on which the original act was performed and cures the defect arising from the absence of prior authority."

"The resignation thus stood consummated by the conduct of the parties, and in particular by the respondent's own conduct."

"He cannot have his cake and eat it too."

The Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed DTU's appeal (C.A. No. 9308 of 2024), setting aside the Delhi High Court's reinstatement direction and dismissing Rawat's writ petition; dismissed Rawat's cross-appeal for back wages (C.A. No. 9309 of 2024); and dismissed his Special Leave Petitions against NITC (Nos. 625-626 of 2021). No order as to costs.

The ruling clarifies that employees cannot exploit technical infirmities in acceptance procedures after enjoying the fruits of their resignation, while confirming that competent authorities can cure procedural defects through timely ratification—a significant guidance for service jurisprudence nationwide.