JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - These are two connected petitions. The dispute in both the petitions relates to the post of Principal of Rastriya Inter College, Ismailpur, Bulandshahr. Admittedly, Raj Singh Yadav is the Principal of the Institution. On 4th Sept., 1988 he made an application for voluntary retirement as he had completed 45 years of age and had put in 20 years of service. His date of birth is 1st Dec., 1937 and in the normal course he would have retired after attaining the age of sixty years. In this application dated 4th Sept., 1988, he had specifically mentioned that he seeks voluntary retirement after the end of April, 1989. 2. On 8th April, 1989, the Principal requested the Manager of the College that his voluntary retirement be accepted with effect from 30th June, 1989 instead of 30th April, 1989, which was his earlier request. In this circumstance, the request of the Principal was that he should be retired with effect from 30th June, 1989. On 30th June, 1989 the -Principal again wrote to the Committee of Management that he now wants to withdraw his application for seeking voluntary retirement. The matter in regard to the voluntary retirement was considered by the District Inspector of Schools. He by an order dated 11th Sept., 1989 acceded to the request of the Principal Raj Singh Yadav and held that in view of the letter dated 30th June, 1989 the application, made by the Principal for voluntary retirement be treated -as cancelled. 3. The order dated 11th Sept., 1989 has been challenged in the writ petition No-3794 of 1990 by Raj Singh Yadav, who claims himself to be the officiating principal of the College. 4. After the order dated 11th Sept., 1989 was passed, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, by an order dated 2nd Oct., 1989 stayed the earlier order dated 11th Sept., 1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. On 11th Oct., 1989, the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr also stayed the order dated 11th Sept., 1989 under the direction of the Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner, consequently, challenged the orders dated 2nd Oct. and 11th Oct., 1989 before this Court in writ petition No. 18945 of 1989. This petition was filed on 17th Oct., 1989. On 11th Oct., 1989, the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr also stayed the order dated 11th Sept., 1989 under the direction of the Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner, consequently, challenged the orders dated 2nd Oct. and 11th Oct., 1989 before this Court in writ petition No. 18945 of 1989. This petition was filed on 17th Oct., 1989. A Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order on that very day staying the operation of the order dated 2nd Oct., 1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr and the order dated 11th Oct., 1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the petitions. Since counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, the parties are agreed that both these petitions may be disposed of at this stage. It is also not disputed by the parties that in case the writ petition No. 3794 of 1990 is dismissed and the order dated list Sept., 1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr is held to be valid, then the subsequent writ petition No. 18945 of 1989 has to he allowed. 6. In writ petition No. 3794 of 1990, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before us. His first contention is that once a Principal gave an application seeking voluntary retirement, the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr is bound to accept the said application, in spite of the fact that the Principal subsequently recalled his application for voluntary retirement. The second submission of the learned counsel is that the application seeking withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement was made on 1-7-1989. The Principal had already retired according to his own request on 30th June, 1989 and as such on the basis of the subsequent application given on 1-7-1989, the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to pass an order that the application for voluntary retirement be treated as cancelled. 7. The conditions of the service of the Principal of an Intermediate College are governed by U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Regulations framed therein and the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. It is not disputed by the parties that so far as these statutory provisions are concerned, there is no provision in regard to the voluntary retirement of a principal. It is not disputed by the parties that so far as these statutory provisions are concerned, there is no provision in regard to the voluntary retirement of a principal. The State of U. P., however, issued an order dated 24th June, 1983, which related to voluntary retirement in the case of teachers and principals of the Intermediate Colleges. By virtue of this order a teacher and principal of the Intermediate College was also given a right of voluntary retirement like the Government servants, if they attain the age of 45 years and put in 20 years of service. This Government Order dated 24th June, 1983 contains five clauses. The entire order is quoted below in order to examine the questions urged by the petitioner. This Government Order dated 24th June, 1983 contains five clauses. The entire order is quoted below in order to examine the questions urged by the petitioner. LosPNk iwoZd lsok fuo`fRr la[;k 1862@15&8&3058@79 y[kum% fnukad 24 twu 1983 fo"k;%& lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kd ,oa f'k{kdksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dks jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkkafr 45 o"kZ dh vk;q vFkok 20 o"kZ dh lso ds mijkUr LosPNk ls lsok fuo`fRr gksus dh lqfo/kk fn;k tkukA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d funs'kky; ds v/;'kkldh; i= la[;k isa'ku ( 2) @1325@52&10@( 55) @81&82] fnukad 1 ebZ 1982 ds lanHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kd ,oa f'k{kdksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dks jkT;iky egksn; us jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkkafr 45 o"kZ dh vk; vFkok 20 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus ds mijkUr LosPNk ls lsok fuo`Rr gksus dh lqfo/kk fn;s tkus dk vkns'k lg"kZ iznku dj fn;k gSA 2- ;g lqfo/kk fuEu izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu iznku dh tk jgh gS& izR;sd f'k{kd@deZpkjh] tks LosPNk ls lsok fuo`Rr gksuk pkgrk gS vius fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh vFkkZr fo|ky; dh izcU/k lfefr dks] bfPNr ls fuo`fRr dh frfFk ls de ls de rhu ekg iwoZ bl vk'k; dk fyf[kr izkFkZuk i= nsxkA 3- izcU/k lfefr bl vk'k; dk izLrko ikfjr djds lEcfU/kr ftyk fo|ky; fufj{kd @ e.Myh; ckfydk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk dks Hkstsxh fd vkosnd deZpkjh dks dfFkr fnukad ls lsok eqDr fd;s tkus esa mls vkifRr ugha gSA ftyk fo|ky; fufj{kd @ e.Myh; ckfydk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk n~okjk rn~uqlkj vkosnu ds lsok fuo`Rr gksus ds vk'k; dk vkns'k izlkfjr fd;k tk;sxkA 4- ;fn fdlh f'k{kd@f'k{kdksRrj deZpkjh ds fo:) vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh fopkjk/khu ;k vklUu gks rks fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh izcU/k lfefr vFkok ftyk fo|ky; fufj{kd @ e.Myh; ckfydk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd og ,sls f'k{kd@f'k{kdksRrj deZpkjh ds LosPNk ls fuo`fRr gksus ds lEcU/k esa fn;s x;s izkFkZuk i= dks vLohdkj dj ns ijUrq vLohdrkZ vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fy;s ;g vfuok;Z gksxk fd veqd f'k{kd@f'k{kdksRrj deZpkjh ls izkIr uksfVl ds fnukad ls nks ekg ds vUnj mls izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj djus ds dkj.kksa ls voxr djk nsaA 5- bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g Hkh dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd tgka dksbZ f'k{kd@f'k{kdksRrj deZpkjh] tks bl jktkKk ds v/khu LosPNk ls lsok fuo`Rr gksrk gS rks mls lqlaxr fu;eksa ds vuqlkj rFkk mls izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu jgrsA " 8. In Raj Kumar v. Union of India. In Raj Kumar v. Union of India. AIR 1969 SC 180 : (1969 Lab IC 310), the question came up for consideration as to when a Government servant can withdraw his resignation. Shah J. (as he then was) delivering the judgment for the Court opined as follow (para 5) : "But where a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation determination of his employment, his services normally stand terminated from the date of which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule covering the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not he open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus paenitentiae but not thereafter." The law laid down consequently was that a Government servant can withdraw his resignation till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority. 9. The principle laid down in the case of Raj Kumar 11969 Lab IC 310) (SC) (supra) was approved by the constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra, AIR 1978 SC 694 : (1978 Lab IC 660). In the said case it was held as follows (Para 51) : - "It will bear repetition that the general principle 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. 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." 10. In P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789 : (1981 Lab IC 187), the question as to when an employee can withdraw his resignation came up for consideration of an employee who was not a Government servant. In P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789 : (1981 Lab IC 187), the question as to when an employee can withdraw his resignation came up for consideration of an employee who was not a Government servant. The employee in this case was lecturer in the Department of Electronics in P.S.G. College of Technology, Coimbatore. Hon'ble Supreme Court again relying upon the judgment of Raj Kumar (1969 Lab IC 310) (supra) held that the services of a Government servant normally stands terminated from the date on which letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority unless there is any law of a specific rule governing conditions of service to the contrary. It was further held that the same principle would apply to the case of any other employee. In effect this is an authority for the proposition that even a teacher of the educational institution would be governed by the same principles as would govern the Government servants unless there is any rule or governing conditions of service which is contrary. 11. In a very recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2354 : (1988 Lab IC 46) Hon'ble Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. now Chief Justice of India, had also an occasion to consider the question about the effect of the withdrawal of the request for voluntary retirement. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India observed as follows (para 13) - "in the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange one's future with any amount of certainty, a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardise Government or 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 the facts and circumstances of this case. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The Court cannot but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out" uncomfortable employees, as a model employer the Government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees." 12. We are consequently of the opinion that the principles which are applicable to a case of a resignation would also apply to the case of a voluntary retirement in regard to Government servant or other employees. We are consequently of the opinion that the principles which are applicable to a case of a resignation would also apply to the case of a voluntary retirement in regard to Government servant or other employees. In the case of employees also who are not Government servants, the principles on which a Government servant can withdraw his resignation or request for voluntary retirement would equally apply to them. 13. In the present case the question is whether the Principal of an institution can withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. In view of what we have held above, the Principal could withdraw his request for voluntary retirement till such time as his request had not already been accepted and he ceased to be an employee of the institution. In this light the order dated 24-6-1983 which we have quoted above has to be examined. 14. Clause 3 of the above order clearly provides that an employee whether he is in the teaching staff or in the non-teaching staff of the College, can apply for voluntary retirement. This application has to be made to the Managing Committee of the College. The Managing Committee of the College has to pass a resolution that the Managing Committee has no objection to that application. This application alongwith the Resolution of the Managing Committee has to he thereafter forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools as the case may be and thereafter final order has to be passed by the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Inspectress of Girls schools. It, is, therefore, clear that before a request for voluntary retirement can be said to be effective an express order has to be passed by the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, as the case may be by accepting such request. 15. Clause 4 in the order, however, further speaks that in case there is a disciplinary action pending against an employee or it is contemplated it will be open to the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools not to accept the application for voluntary retirement. 15. Clause 4 in the order, however, further speaks that in case there is a disciplinary action pending against an employee or it is contemplated it will be open to the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools not to accept the application for voluntary retirement. From the reading of the entire order, however, it is clear that there is no prohibition in the order prescribing that an employee who has given an application for voluntary retirement cannot withdraw it subsequently, before it becomes effective by an express order passed by the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. In view of the interpretation, which we have put on the above order, it is, therefore, clear that it is open to an employee\ to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement prior to the passing of an ex-press order, by District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools accepting the employee's request for voluntary retirement. In the instant case an express order has not been passed accepting the request of the Principal for voluntary retirement as such the withdrawal of his request was valid. This exact view has been taken by the District Inspector of Schools in the order dated 1st Sept., 1989 and consequently, the said order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is substantiated. 16. In regard to the second submission made by the learned counsel since we have taken the view that it is open to an employee to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement before an express order is passed by District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools as such even if the request for withdrawal is made on 1-7-1989 it makes no difference. The second submission of the learned counsel consequently does not have substance. In the result writ petition No. 3794 of 1990 is dismissed and consequently writ petition No. 18945 of 1989 is allowed and the orders dated 2nd Oct., 1989 passed by the District Magistrate Bulandshahr and the order dated list Oct., 1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools are hereby quashed.