JUDGMENT S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Resignation from employment may be of different kinds. In a given case by the contract of employment or terms of appointment an employee may be entitled to resign and walk off with immediate effect and in such a case his resignation may take effect immediately. Thereafter he may not be entitled to withdraw his resignation and say that he must be, permitted to continue because the resignation once presented with immediate effect may take effect at once leading to cessation of service. Even in cases where the employee is entitled to terminate his services by a unilateral resignation intended to resign with effect immediately he may choose to resign with effect only from a future date or on the happening of a future contingency like its acceptance by the employer or any other person competent to accept it. In such a case the employment will get terminated by the resignation coming into effect only on the date mentioned or on acceptance by the concerned person or authority. There may be yet other categories of cases where a unilateral resignation by the employee is not possible and in spite of his desire it could take effect only on a future date like the date of expiry of a notice period or contingent on the resignation being accepted by the person or authority concerned. In such cases, the employment will continue in spite of the resignation which could only be treated as an offer to terminate services. It will become effective only after expiry of the period or the acceptance, as the case may be. If the resignation is in presente, it may terminate the service forthwith and may not be capable of being withdrawn later unilaterally. In any of these cases the employee, in spite of his right to tender an unconditional unilateral resignation to take effect immediately, could choose to have a conditional offer for resignation to take effect on a future date or conditional on its acceptance on a future date. Till that contingency happens and the service gets terminated legally and factually he continues to be the employee, entitled to withdraw from the offer by withdrawing his resignation which has not taken effect. 2. Till that contingency happens and the service gets terminated legally and factually he continues to be the employee, entitled to withdraw from the offer by withdrawing his resignation which has not taken effect. 2. The basic principle of law is that an author of a resignation has the right to withdraw the same before it is to take effect Moideenkutty Haji v. State of Kerala ILR 1981 (1) Ker. 488. The authority who is to accept the same cannot accept it on an earlier date and say that service is terminated and hence no withdrawal is possible. 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 rule is equally applicable to employees and constitutional functionaries. Union of India v. Gopal Chandra AIR 1978 S.C. 694 . If he resigns in presente the resignation will terminate his office forthwith and it cannot thereafter be withdrawn. But if he chooses to resign from a future date, the act of resigning will be complete only for that date and before that he can withdraw because his tenure is not terminated. 3. The services, of an employee normally stands terminated only from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority, unless there is any law or statutory rule governing the conditions of service to the contrary. P. Kasilingam v. P. S. G. College of Technology AIR 1981 SC 780. Till the resignation Was accepted by the concerned authority in consonance with the rules governing acceptance, the employee concerned has locus poenitentiae but not later Balram Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2354 . When an officer sent a letter by which he purported to resign from a future date adding that the date of receipt of, the letter should be treated as the date of commencement of the notice period, if he was informed that his resignation is accepted with immediate effect by waiving the condition of notice, that would be without jurisdiction Punjab National Bank v. P. K. Mittal AIR 1989 SC 1083 . Under common law also, resignation is not complete until accepted by the competent Authority. Under common law also, resignation is not complete until accepted by the competent Authority. Before such acceptance; the employee can change mind and withdraw his resignation. When once the resignation is accepted and the contract of service put an end to, the relationship of master and servant ends and thereafter there is no question of withdrawal of the resignation J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. State of U.P. 1990 (4) SCC 27 . 4. We will consider the case in hand in the light of these legal principles. Petitioner was the Company Secretary under the first respondent, Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation, which admittedly comes under "other authority" within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution. On 15th March 1991, petitioner submitted Ext. P-2 resignation to the first respondent saying: "Please accept this resignation and relieve me from your duties at your earliest". We are not concerned with the reason for resignation. There cannot be any dispute that the resignation was intended to take effect only on a future date when it is accepted and the petitioner relieved. In the counter filed by the third respondent on behalf of all the respondents, the following f acts and clearly admitted. The resignation was considered and accepted only in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 18th April 1991. The decision was to relieve him only on 30th April 1991 and the petitioner was allowed to discharge his duties and he discharged his duties till 30th April 1991 As per rules, petitioner could have resigned only after a month's notice. It is therefore clear that the petitioner continued to be an employee till 30th April 1991 or at least till 18th April 1991 when the resignation was accepted. It is also admitted that the purport of Ext. P-2 resignation letter is that he must be relieved on a future date on acceptance of the resignation subject to the rules regarding notice. 5. On 6th April 1991, admittedly, petitioner withdraw his resignation by presenting Ext- P-3 stating that his new employment did not materialise But, strangely respondents did not accept it. He was given Ext. P-4 notice stating that his resignation was accepted on 18th April 1991 and he was ordered to be relieved on 30th April 1991. He was asked to handover charge. He was given Ext. P-4 notice stating that his resignation was accepted on 18th April 1991 and he was ordered to be relieved on 30th April 1991. He was asked to handover charge. What was accepted was a resignation not in force on the date of acceptance. It was withdrawn such earlier. Even according to the admission of the respondents in their counter, he could very well have withdrawn his resignation. Ext. P-4 is therefore an illegal act and it may amount to illegal termination of services without applying the principles of natural justice. Petitioner submitted Ext. P-5 representation stating that the action is illegal. Nothing was done. Therefore, he moved this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution to quash Ext. P-4 and for a declaration that he is entitled to continue in the service of the first respondent as its Company Secretary with continuity of service and for consequential benefits. In view of the legal principles discussed above, there cannot be any doubt that Ext. P-4 order is illegal and violative of the rights of the petitioner. 6. It was argued on behalf of the respondents relying on the decision in Soji v. The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited ILR 1984 (2) Ker. 71, that a petition under Art.226 will lie only if a fund mental right is affected and the petitioner who is relieved from service cannot say that any fundamental right is affected. Under Art.16, every citizen is having equality of opportunity relating to public employment. Illegal termination, of service is a matter affecting fundamental rights. I find no merit in the contention that the Original Petition is not maintainable. Ext. P-3 was given at a time when the resignation was not accepted and could not admittedly have been accepted. A later decision accepting the withdrawn resignation and ordering termination of services is illegal and liable to be quashed. The Original Petition is allowed. Ext. P-4 order accepting the resignation and relieving the petitioner is quashed. It is declared that in spite of Ext. P-4 petitioner is continuing in service continuously and uninterruptedly with rights to all benefits out of the service. If the petitioner is sent out of service, he will be reinstated forthwith with all benefits as if he was continuing in service without any interruption. No costs.