JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur (shortly referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 25.10.1994 by which the respondent No.2-Dr. Manjula Sharma has been ordered to be reinstated in service as Principal of Balmandir Mahila Sikshak Prasikshan Mahavidyalaya by recording a finding that the letter of resignation sent by the respondent No.2-Dr. Manjula Sharma could not have been accepted after seven months of that resignation since all these months she had been permitted to continue in the job as Principal. 2. The respondent No.2-Dr.Sharma had filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non- Government. Educational Institutions Regulations 1989 wherein she related her case and and submitted that she had been appointed as Principal of the College on 22.2.1993 and thereafter an order was passed extending her services till 10.5.1993 or till a duly selected candidate was available. Thereafter no one else was appointed and thus she was allowed to continue on the post. However, some differences arose between Dr. Sharma and the petitioner-Joint Secretary as a result of which, the petitioner in a huff and state of excitement offered a letter of resignation dated 15.3.1993. But according to her further case when the Secretary of the Institution and other employees persuaded her not to insist on the resignation on 22.10.1993. Thereafter she was allowed to continue on the post for a period of seven months during which she was also appointed as member of Senate of the Rajasthan University. All of a sudden on 30.5.1994 a letter was sent to her informing her that the letter of resignation which had been sent by the respondent No.2-Dr.Sharma seven months ago had been accepted by the University and thus she was no longer the Principal of the College. The respondent-Dr.Sharma challenged this letter before the Tribunal under the appropriate provision by filing a petition therein. 3. The petitioner-Institution contested the case of the respondent and filed reply as also advanced oral submissions. It was contended on behalf of the Institution that the letter of withdrawal of resignation of the respondent which was claimed to have been sent on 22.3.1993, in fact had never been received by the Institution and hence they were not aware whether any withdrawal letter was sent by the respondent to the Institution. It was contended on behalf of the Institution that the letter of withdrawal of resignation of the respondent which was claimed to have been sent on 22.3.1993, in fact had never been received by the Institution and hence they were not aware whether any withdrawal letter was sent by the respondent to the Institution. It was further submitted by them that the respondent-Dr. Sharma was allowed to continue for a period of seven months in spite of the letter of resignation as it was the mid session of the students and they were under compulsion to permit the Principal to continue as her resignation could not have been accepted during mid session affecting the administration of the Institution. 4. The Tribunal on a consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, was pleased to record a finding that the resignation of the respondent-Dr. Sharma after seven months of its offering, could not have been accepted and hence the same was not held to be effective so as to remove the respondent from the post. An improvement of their case by the counsel for the petitioner- Institution is again sought to be made at this stage although it was never urged before the Tribunal that the respondent was in Government service in some other Department and in case this were brought to the notice of the Tribunal, she could never have been ordered to be reinstated. However, it is difficult to appreciate this additional fact at the stage of the writ petition which for practical purposes is an appeal against the order of the Tribunal, as this was never pleaded before the Tribunal and in case it were pleaded, what would have been the reaction of the Tribunal on this, is difficult to guess. Hence this argument cannot be appreciated at this stage. 5. In so far as the existing facts and circumstances of the case is concerned I do not consider it a fit case where the Tribunal's order should be interfered with for it is the petitioner-institution itself which has permitted the respondent No.2 to continue on the post for more than seven months inspite of the letter of her resignation. Thus by its own conduct the petitioner-institution conveyed it to the respondent that the letter of her resignation has not been accepted. Thus by its own conduct the petitioner-institution conveyed it to the respondent that the letter of her resignation has not been accepted. If in fact, the Institution was interested in accepting the resignation and had retained her in the job only on account of the fact that it was session, at least some communication to that effect should have been sent to the respondent. That admittedly was not done and hence this explanation was rightly brushed aside by the Tribunal. It is no doubt true that the Tribunal has not relied upon the letter of withdrawal of resignation by the respondent No.2, but the conduct and the manner in which the respondent was permitted to continue was more than effective in favour of the view that the withdrawal of resignation had been received by the institution and any explanation to the contrary was an afterthought. If a letter of resignation had been sent by the employee and letter of withdrawal, is also claimed to have been sent which denied by the Management of the Institution, but acceptance of the withdrawal is indicated and reflected by conduct of the Institution in the sense that it permitted the employee to continue on the job, a logical conclusion is bound to be drawn that the resignation was not accepted by the institution. Hence the explanation that it was under compulsion to permit the respondent to continue in the job by force of circumstances s it was mid-session, does not inspire confidence and that has rightly not been relied upon by the Tribunal. The additional fact urged by the petitioner that the respondent is working elsewhere, cannot be a subject matter of considering in this writ petition as that had never been urged before the Tribunal and if she has been working on some different post while she was out of service, the same also cannot be taken into account so as to have any effect on the merit of the case of the respondent. The Tribunal's order therefore in allowing the application of the respondent is not fit to be interfered with. The writ petition under the circumstances stands dismissed but without any costs.Petition dismissed. *******