A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is serving as Professor of Dairy Engineering with respondent No. 1-University. On completion of twenty years of service he submitted a letter dated 6/08/1985 and expressed his desire to voluntarily retire upon expiry of leave due to him. He submitted this letter under the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural University Statutes Chapter-III Schedule-II Item 7. 7 (xii) which inter alia provides that an University employee giving notice of voluntary retirement may also apply before the expiry of the notice for the leave standing to his credit which may be granted to him to run concurrently with the period of notice. The appropriate respondent authority replied to the petitioner to the effect that his request for availing of the leave standing to his credit was accepted and he was informed that he will be entitled to avail of the leave. Different categories of leave to which the petitioner was entitled were to expire on 31/12/1986 and they were sanctioned from time to time. During this period the petitioner continued to guide M. Sc. Students who were undergoing Post-Graduate Studies in M. Sc. (Dairy Engineering ). Meanwhile the post of Professor of Dairy Engineering was not filled in but only arrangement was made for giving additional charge of the post to other person. ( 2 ) THE period of voluntary notice of voluntary retirement was to expire on 31/12/1986 Before this date i. e. on 20/12/1986 the petitioner withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement and requested the University Authorities to permit him to join his duties with effect from 1/01/1987 According to the petitioner this was permissible under Gujarat Agricultural University Schedule-II Chapter-III Item No. 7. 7 (vi ). However when the petitioner went to resume duties he was served with a letter dated 31/12/1986 and he was directed not to resume duties till final decision was taken by the higher authorities of the University. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 1/01/1987 to respondent No. 1-University stating that he had submitted his duty joining report as per his application dated 30/12/1986 By letter dated 19/02/1987 the petitioner has been informed that his request to withdraw the notice to voluntary retirement was not granted by the Chancellor. This letter is produced at Annexure J to the petition. This letter is produced at Annexure J to the petition. Therefore the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of this decision by filing the petition on 9/03/1987 Initially notice was issued returnable on 20-3-1987 and thereafter matter was being adjourned from time to time. Meanwhile on 4/04/1987 the respondent-authorities issued advertisement inviting application for the post of Professor of Dairy Engineering. The petition came up for admission hearing on 28/04/1987 On that day this Court (Coram: R. A. Mehta J.) passed the following order: ( 3 ) THE respondent appeared in the petition and filed affidavit in reply inter alia contending that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had rejected the application for withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement on the ground that it was submitted after one and half years of the application expressing his desire to voluntarily retire. It is also contended that the petitioner had enjoyed his leave due to him and he would not be in a position to work on his original post if he were to join back after one and half years period from the date of exercise of option of voluntary retirement. ( 4 ) IT is an undisputed position that between the date of application for voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner and the date of withdrawal of the said notice of voluntary retirement the respondent has not made appointment of any other person to the post of Professor of Dairy Engineering. As stated above advertisement for the post in question was issued on 4/04/1987 i. e. after the filing of the petition. By an interim order this Court has restrained the respondent-authority from appointing any person to the post in question. In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the question arises: is the decision taken by the respondent-authority not to approve the withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement legal and valid? The relevant part of the statute which is contained in Gujarat Agricultural University Statute Schedule-II Chapter-III Item No. 7. 7 (vi) reads as follows:"a notice of voluntary retirement may be withdrawn subsequently only with the approval of the appointing authority provided the request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the notice. The relevant part of the statute which is contained in Gujarat Agricultural University Statute Schedule-II Chapter-III Item No. 7. 7 (vi) reads as follows:"a notice of voluntary retirement may be withdrawn subsequently only with the approval of the appointing authority provided the request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the notice. " ( 5 ) THE plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that an employee has a right to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement before the expiry of the notice period. In the instant case the notice period as stated above was to expire on 31/12/1986 On Dece 30/12/1986 the notice of voluntary retirement has been withdrawn. Therefore the short question is was the authority justified in not approving the withdrawal of the notice ? In somewhat similar situation an almost identical question arose before this Court (Coram: R. C. Mankad J.) in Special Civil Application No. 913 of 1983 decided on 3/02/1984 (Madhavlal K. Patel v. Dist. Education Committee ). In that case a Primary School Teacher who had given notice of voluntary retirement withdraw the same before the expiry of the notice period and the appropriate authority had refused to grant approval. This action of the authority was challenged before this High Court. The question which arose before the Court were: (1)WHEN can competent authority refuse to grant approval ? (2) Has the authority unrestricted or arbitrary power or discretion to refuse to grant approval ? (3) Can the authority without assigning any reason or ground whatsoever withhold approval? ( 6 ) THE Court answered all the questions in the negative and held that the authority could not have refused to grant of approval unreasonably or arbitrarily. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid decision has been followed by me in the case of Nalinkant J. Baxi v. Charman and Managing Director Bank of India Bombay and Ors. reported in 1986 Labour and Industrial Cases 1784. The question is now concluded by the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 2354 . Before the Supreme court the question arose in the context of Central Civil Services (Pensions) Rules (1972) Rule 48a (4 ). reported in 1986 Labour and Industrial Cases 1784. The question is now concluded by the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 2354 . Before the Supreme court the question arose in the context of Central Civil Services (Pensions) Rules (1972) Rule 48a (4 ). The relevant part of the Rule reads as follows:"a Government servant who has elected to retire under this Rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority. " ( 8 ) IN that case the request for withdrawal of notice of retirement was made before the intended date of retirement. The approval of the authority however was not given. An attempt was made to challenge the vires of aforesaid Rule before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court however held that it may be a salutary requirement that a Government servant cannot withdraw a letter of resignation or that of voluntary retirement at his sweet-will and put the Government into difficulties by writing letter of resignation or retirement and withdrawing the same immediately without rhyme or reason. However the Supreme Court further observed that that approval is not ipse dixit of the approving authority. The approving authority who is the statutory authority must act reasonably and rationally. In para 13 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed: In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange ones future with any amount of certainty a certain amount of flexibility is required and if such flexibility does not jeopardize Government or administration administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement. . . . . . . . . In view of the aforesaid settled legal position what is required to be examined is: Is the refusal to grant approval by the respondent authorities in accordance with law? The reasons advanced on behalf of the respondent-authority are that a period of about one and half years has elapsed after the notice of voluntary retirement was given. . . . In view of the aforesaid settled legal position what is required to be examined is: Is the refusal to grant approval by the respondent authorities in accordance with law? The reasons advanced on behalf of the respondent-authority are that a period of about one and half years has elapsed after the notice of voluntary retirement was given. It is also stated that the petitioner had enjoyed his leave due and the petitioner would not be in a position to work on his original post if he were to join back after a period of about one and half years from the date of exercise of option of voluntary retirement. The aforesaid reasons were disclosed in affidavit-in-reply dated 20/04/1987 sworn by one Shri R. J. Patel Registrar of respondent-University. In fact the aforesaid reasons are not indicated or mentioned in letter Annexure J. The relevant part of the letter Annexure J reads as follows: ( 9 ) IF one reads the aforesaid letter in ordinary manner it only conveys that the application for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement which was given after a period of one and half years has not been granted by the Vice-Chancellor. The letter does not specify the reason that because it was late by one and half years the same has not been granted. In fact no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the letter. But assuming for a moment that these reasons are noted in the file of the Vice-Chancellor and these reasons are disclosed in affidavit-in-reply para 6 then on that basis the reasons be examined It is an undisputed position that till 4/04/1987 no action whatsoever was taken by the respondent-authorities for filling in the post of Professor of Dairy Engineering i. e. the post which the petitioner is holding. There is no administrative change whatsoever. Nothing has been indicated either in the affidavit-in-reply or in any other document that the administration of respondent-authorities would be in any way jeopardized or that position has been changed by the respondent authorities on account of the notice of voluntary retirement given by petitioner. In these circumstances delay alone can not be given undue importance. To say that the petitioner would not be in a position to work as Professor Dairy Engineering after a period of about one and half years does not stand to reason. In these circumstances delay alone can not be given undue importance. To say that the petitioner would not be in a position to work as Professor Dairy Engineering after a period of about one and half years does not stand to reason. On the contrary as disclosed by the petitioner he was guiding Ph. D. Students and service of the Principal Dr. Verma was terminated and that Dr. Verma was no more working with respondent No. 1-University therefore the petitioner felt that now it would not be difficult for him to serve with respondent University and that is the reason why he changed his mind. The petitioner was justified in withdrawing the notice of voluntary retirement and he had got reason for changing his mind. On the other hand there is no justifiable reason whatsoever for respondent-authorities for not granting approval to the withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement. ( 10 ) IN above view of the matter the petition is required to be allowed. In the result the petition is allowed. The order Annexure J dated: 19/02/1987 and Annexure J/1 dated: 7/09/1987 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner immediately in services with full back wages and continuity of service. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. [rest of the Judgment is not material for the reports ]rule made absolute. .