JUDGMENT K.K. Narendran, J. 1. From 1st May 1975 onwards the petitioner was the Headmaster of the A.M. L.P. School, Thoombathparamba, of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. On 5th July 1977 the petitioner sent Ext. P1 letter to the 4th respondent resigning from the post of Headmastership of the school with effect from 1st August 1977. The 4th respondent on 5th July 1977 itself accepted the petitioner's resignation. But on 28th July 1977 the petitioner sent Ext. P2 letter to the 4th respondent withdrawing Ext. P1 resignation and informing the 4th respondent that he proposes to continue as Headmaster of the school. The 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer by Ext. P3 proceedings dated 1st August 1977 approved the petitioner's resignation from the post of Headmaster with effect from 1st August 1977 and also approved the appointment of the 5th respondent as Headmaster of the school. In view of Ext. P3 the petitioner handed over charge as Headmaster of the school to the 5th respondent. But the petitioner filed an appeal to the 2nd responds District Educational Officer, Tirur against Ext. P3 order. The 2nd respondent District Educational Officer rejected that appeal by Ext. P4. The petitioner challenged Ext. P4 in a revision before the 1st respondent State. The 1st respondent by Ext. P5 rejected the petitioner's revision holding: "The petitioner has no claim that he had withdrawn his resignation letter before the Manager's acceptance of the same and the moment the Manager, who was the appointing authority accepted the relinquishment the act of relinquishment became final, and the petitioner was precluded from saying that he wanted to withdraw his request". The petitioner then challenged Exts. P3, P4 and P5 by this original petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that he is entitled to continue as Headmaster of the 4th respondent's school. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent State. It is stated in para 3 that on the acceptance of the resignation, the relinquishment by the petitioner of his post of Headmaster has become final and hence the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, withdraw his resignation. It is also pointed out that as the petitioner has tendered his resignation voluntarily and it was accepted by the appointing authority the provisions contained in R.48 and 53 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules has no application. It is also pointed out that as the petitioner has tendered his resignation voluntarily and it was accepted by the appointing authority the provisions contained in R.48 and 53 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules has no application. In para 4 it is stated that as the petitioner has admitted that he was relieved from the post of Headmaster as per orders of the Assistant Educational Officer, the contention that the previous approval of the Educational Officer was not there before he was relieved is not correct. 3. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner can withdraw his resignation before it takes effect even though the Manager of the school accepted the petitioner's resignation before the same was withdrawn. There are different kinds of resignations; some resignations are with immediate effect while other resignations are meant to take effect from a future date. In the case of the latter, the question is whether anybody can validly prevent the person who submitted the resignation from withdrawing the same before the date on which it is to take effect. It goes without saying that on basic principles of law an author of a resignation has the right to withdraw the same before it is to take effect. The fact that the authority who is to accept the resignation, accepted the same before the date of withdrawal is immaterial if the withdrawal was made before the resignation was to take effect. This right of the person who resigns with effect from a future date will be there always. 4. In coming to the above conclusion I am supported by a decision of the supreme Court in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra AIR 1978 SC 694 wherein it is said: ''The general principle regarding resignation is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a 'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office tenure of the resignor. This general rule is equally applicable to government servants and constitutional functionaries. This general rule is equally applicable to government servants and constitutional functionaries. In the case of a government servant/ or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/ or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, give up his service/ or office, normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority." In Kunjukrishnan Nadar v. Speaker 1964 KLT 140 it is said: "The absence of a specific provision for withdrawal of a prospective resignation in the Constitution or the Rules is immaterial as basic principles of law and procedure must be applied wherever they are relevant. It then follows that there was no valid letter of resignation on the material date to be given effect to, and therefore the petitioner's seat in the Assembly has not become vacant. 5. In this case, R.48 and 53 Chap.14A of the Kerala Education rules also go to show that the resignation of an Aided School Teacher can take effect only with the concurrence of the Educational Officer. In this case, before that concurrence was obtained, the petitioner withdrew his resignation. So, for this reason also, it cannot be said that on the date when the petitioner withdrew his resignation, it was not possible. By the mere acceptance of the Manager of the resignation, the resignation cannot become effective. In this view of the matter, Exts. P3, P4 and P5 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I set aside Exts. P3, P4 and P5. The petitioner is given a declaration that he is entitled to continue as Headmaster of the 4th respondent's school. It is for the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer to see that the petitioner is given a reposting as Headmaster of the school. 6. In the result, the original petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.