JUDGMENT : U.N. Sinha, C.J. The appellant had filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 923 of 1970 in this Court, praying that the ORDER :, dated the 23rd April, 1970 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif, rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner be set aside. This writ application was dismissed in limine by a learned Judge of this Court on the 28th April, 1970 3.od this letters patent appeal has been filed against that ORDER :. The relevant facts are as follows. The petitioner was a candidate for the election of the Mukhiya of Supasong Gram Panchayat, in the district of Patna. He was the Headmaster in a State-subsidised High School at Afzalpur, in the district of Santal Parganas. He had purported to resign from the service by a letter, dated the 7th April, 1970 sent to the Secretary of the school, a copy of which was given as Annexure 2 to the writ application. He had filed his nomination paper on the 13th April, 1970 and it was accepted by the Returning Officer on the same day. Chhotey Prasad, a respondent in the writ case, . had filed an objection to the acceptance of the nomination paper of the appellant and the Sub-divisional Officer, Bihar-sharif, rejected the appellant's nomination paper on the ground that the appellant was the Headmaster of the school concerned and that his resignation had till then not been accepted by the Managing Committee of the School. The petitioner's case in the writ application was that his resignation letter, dated the 7th April, 1970 sent to the Secretary of the School had been received by the Secretary and the petitioner's resignation was accepted by him. The petitioner had been directed to hand over charge, which he did on the 15th April, 1970. A copy of the charge report was given as Annexure 4 to the writ application. Thus, the petitioner had made out a case in the writ application that since he had resigned and handed over charge before the date of filing the nomination paper he was qualified to be a candidate and the Sub-divisional Officer had wrong1y rejected his nomination paper under Section 79 (1)(b) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. Thus, the petitioner had made out a case in the writ application that since he had resigned and handed over charge before the date of filing the nomination paper he was qualified to be a candidate and the Sub-divisional Officer had wrong1y rejected his nomination paper under Section 79 (1)(b) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. That provision of la w reads thus: "79(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election, nomination, or appointment as a Mukhiya, member of the Executive Committee, Sarpanch or Panch if such person- (b) is in the service of the Central or State Government or any institution receiving aid from the Government or any local authority; Provided that a person holding any office in any institution receiving aid from the Government or any local authority shall not be disqualified for appointment or nomination as a member of the Executive Committee or a Panch as the case may be." 2. Sri Balabhadra Prasad Singh appearing for the appellant has contended that when the appellant had sent his letter, dated the 7th April, 1970 to the Secretary of the High School concerned and it had been received by the Secretary, the appellant's service as the Headmaster of the school had ipso facto come to an end. It is argued that the Sub-divisional Officer was in error in holding that because the resignation of the appellant had not been accepted by the Managing Committee of the School, which was the appointing authority, the appellant was still the Headmaster of the subsidised High School and, therefore, he was disqualified to stand for election. Sri B. C. Ghose, in his submission, has drawn our attention to Article 325 of the Bihar Education Code, 1961, and has argued that the Headmaster was bound to give one calendar month's time in writing for resigning from the Headmastership of the High School and that the letter sent by the appellant, dated the 7th April, 1970 was not a valid letter of resignation and, therefore, the appellant cannot rely on that letter for any purpose whatsoever. According to Sri Balabhadra Prasad Singh, even if Article 325 of the Code applied, when the appellant had tendered resignation by his letter, dated the 7th April, 1970, his contract of service had Come to an end, even if the letter of resignation had not given one calendar month's notice. According to Sri Balabhadra Prasad Singh, even if Article 325 of the Code applied, when the appellant had tendered resignation by his letter, dated the 7th April, 1970, his contract of service had Come to an end, even if the letter of resignation had not given one calendar month's notice. According to Sri Singh, the appellant’s service had come to an end on the receipt of his letter of resignation and if the letter was not in conformity with Article 325, if it applied, the school could have complained that the Headmaster had committed breach of contract of the service, but, nevertheless, the contract of service had come to an end and, therefore, there was no bar in the appellant's filing his nomination paper thereafter. I do not think that the record of the case supports the contention raised in the appellate stage. From the record of the writ case it appears that the petitioner of the writ case was clear in his contentions to the effect that his resignation had been accepted by the Secretary and the writ petitioner had handed over charge on the 12th April, 1970. As a matter of fact, in this letters patent appeal a further document h1s been filed as Annexure l(a), which was the ORDER :passed by the Secretary of the High School on the 11th April, 1970. This letter clearly stated that the resignation letter of the Headmaster, dated the 7th April, 1970 had been received on the 11th April and that the letter will be placed before the next - meeting of the Managing Committee for acceptance. In such circumstances, the Headmaster had been asked to hand over the records to the clerk of the school. Moreover, at the letters patent stage the. appellant has filed a supplementary affidavit along with Annexure 2, stating that the Headmaster's resignation letter, which had been replied to on the 11th April, 1970 by the Secretary had been considered by the Managing Committee of the School in an extraordinary meeting held on the 9th May 1970 and the Managing Committee accepted the Headmaster's resignation operative from the 7th April, 1970. In the supplementary affidavit the appellant's case is that the Managing Committee had relieved the Headmaster from service as a teacher of the School by accepting his resignation. In the supplementary affidavit the appellant's case is that the Managing Committee had relieved the Headmaster from service as a teacher of the School by accepting his resignation. Therefore, it is clear, that at the writ stage and essentially at this stage the Headmaster's case is that his service had come to an end on the 7th April, 1970 by acceptance of his resignation tendered on the 7th Apri1, 1970 itself. It is difficult to accede to the argument that the letter sent by the Headmaster dated the 7th April, 1970 had determined his service as Headmaster either on the 7th April, or on the receipt of it, because the clear request made by him in his letter was that his resignation may be accepted, effective from the 6th April, 1070. I am of the opinion that a new Case is being made out at this appellate stage, that the appellant's service had come to an end by his giving or sending of the letter of resignation, dated the 7th April, 1970, and that acceptance of his resignation or not, did not matter at all, so that on the 13th April 1970 he was no longer in service of the High School. Therefore, the decisions cited by Sri Singh, namely, in the case of (1) Barber V. Manchester Regional Hospital Board, reported in 1958, 1 Weekly Law Reports 181, (2) Jerome Francis V. The Municipal Councilors of Kuala Lumpur, reported in 1962, 1 Weekly Law Reports 1411, and (3) Executive Committee of U. P. State Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow V. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, reported in A.I.R 1970 Supreme Court 1244, are not really relevant on the point that arises at this stage. I am of the view that it was always the case of the petitioner of the writ case that as his resignation had had been accepted before he had filed the nomination pa per the bar under Section 79 (1) (b) did not apply to him. Therefore, I do nut think that the ORDER :of the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ case in limine, can be interfered with, on the new ground raised on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, I do nut think that the ORDER :of the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ case in limine, can be interfered with, on the new ground raised on behalf of the appellant. The Sub-divisional Officer had held on materials on record on the 23rd April, 1970 that the Headmaster had not been able to satisfy him that his resignation had been accepted by the Managing Committee of the School and it appears from that record that the case made out on behalf of the Headmaster at that stage was that he had resigned and his resignation had been accepted. The letter sent by the Secretary of the School dated the 11th April, 1970 had been produced before him, in which it had been mentioned that the matter of resignation of the Headmaster would be put up before the Managing Committee for acceptance. Therefore, the learned single Judge was right in rejecting the contention raised before him by the writ petitioner that Section 79(1)(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act had no application in the case of the writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, this appeal must fail and it is dismissed. There will be no ORDER :for costs. Application dismissed