Case Overview
Justice Alok Aradhe, speaking for the Bench comprising himself and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, delivered this judgment on 4 August 2026. The case dealt with the validity of withdrawal of resignation after its acceptance and the effect of ratification by the competent authority.
The Court examined the powers of the Board of Management under Section 23(2)(ix) of the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009, the application of Statute 30 of the National Institute of Technology First Statutes, 2009, and the Office Memorandum dated 11 February 1988 governing the withdrawal of resignation.
The Bench held that once the competent authority ratifies the acceptance of resignation and both parties have acted upon it, the employee cannot subsequently withdraw the resignation or claim reinstatement.
Facts
B.S. Rawat was appointed as Assistant Registrar (Legal) in Delhi Technological University (DTU) in 2010. On 19 May 2016, he tendered his resignation, stating that it would take effect from 1 September 2016. Subsequently, he requested the University to waive the notice period and relieve him from service with effect from 31 May 2016.
The Vice-Chancellor, who was holding additional charge, accepted the resignation and relieved him from service. The University issued his no-dues certificate, experience certificate and last pay certificate, all of which were accepted by the respondent without protest.
Nearly four months later, the respondent sought to withdraw his resignation, contending that it had not been accepted by the Board of Management, which was the competent authority under Section 23(2)(ix) of the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009. Thereafter, the Board of Management ratified the earlier acceptance of resignation and rejected his request for withdrawal.
The Delhi High Court directed his reinstatement on the ground that the resignation had not been accepted by the competent authority. Challenging this decision, DTU preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.
During the same period, the respondent joined the National Institute of Technology, Calicut (NITC) as Deputy Registrar. He later resigned from NITC and attempted to withdraw his resignation before being relieved. NITC rejected the request, this dispute also came before the Supreme Court.
Relevant Provisions
- Section 23(2)(ix), Delhi Technological University Act, 2009 – Empowers the Board of Management to appoint employees and consequently to accept their resignation.
- Statute 30, National Institute of Technology First Statutes, 2009 – Provides that resignation takes effect from the date of its acceptance by the appointing authority.
- Office Memorandum dated 11 February 1988 – Permits withdrawal of resignation before relieving, subject to the discretion of the competent authority.
Court’s Observations / Reasoning
The Supreme Court observed that Section 23(2)(ix) of the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009 vests the power to appoint employees in the Board of Management, and consequently, the Board was also the competent authority to accept the respondent’s resignation. Therefore, the initial acceptance by the Vice-Chancellor holding additional charge was without statutory authority.
However, the Court held that although the resignation had initially been accepted by an officer who lacked statutory authority, the defect was cured when the Board of Management later ratified the decision. Therefore, the acceptance became legally valid.
The Court further noted that the respondent had voluntarily requested waiver of the notice period, accepted all service benefits, and obtained employment in another institution on the strength of the experience certificate issued by DTU. Having accepted and acted upon the consequences of his resignation, he was estopped from challenging its validity on a technical ground.
With regard to the NIT Calicut matter, the Court referred to Statute 30 of the National Institute of Technology First Statutes, 2009, which provides that resignation becomes effective from the date it is accepted by the appointing authority. Since the respondent sought withdrawal only after the resignation had already become effective, the competent authority was justified in rejecting the request.
The Court also found that the authority had exercised its discretion in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 11 February 1988.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024 filed by Delhi Technological University and set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court directing reinstatement of the respondent.
The Court held that the Board of Management had validly ratified the acceptance of resignation and that the respondent had no legal right to withdraw it.
The Court also dismissed Civil Appeal No. 9309 of 2024 seeking back wages and dismissed the respondent’s Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 625-626 of 2021 arising from the dispute with the National Institute of Technology, Calicut.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent had voluntarily resigned, accepted all consequential benefits arising from the resignation, and acted upon it by securing alternative employment. Consequently, he could not subsequently challenge the resignation merely because its initial acceptance was by an officer lacking statutory authority. The subsequent ratification by the Board of Management validated the earlier acceptance.
The judgment explains the application of Section 23(2)(ix) of the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009 and Statute 30 of the National Institute of Technology First Statutes, 2009. It reaffirms that once a resignation has been accepted, acted upon and later ratified by the competent authority, it ordinarily cannot be withdrawn. The decision will serve as an important precedent in service law relating to resignation and its withdrawal.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications.
Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.
Official link: –