Judgment :- Heard Mr.K.Chandru, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was employed as Lecturer in Civil Engineering in the first respondent, Institute. Subsequently, he sent a letter of resignation dated 10.8.1998 indicating his intention to resign the post with effect from 1.11.1998. However, on 17.11.1998, he sent a telegram followed by a letter indicating that he intends to withdraw the letter of resignation. It seems that the respondents before receiving the said telegram or letter dated 17.11.1998, had accepted the resignation on 16.11.1998 with effect from 12.8.1998, the day on which his resignation letter has been received by the authorities. Subsequently a further order was passed stating that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted with effect from 1.11.1998. Such order, which was passed in the month of December,1998 was affixed on the door of the petitioner's house. 3. In the aforesaid background, the contention of the petitioner is to the effect that since the resignation could not have been accepted with effect from 12.8.1998 and subsequent order relating to acceptance of the resignation with effect from 1.11.98 was passed in December 1998, by which date the petitioner had already withdrawn his resignation, there was no jurisdiction to accept the resignation and it should be treated that the petitioner is still continued in service. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that as per the resignation letter the resignation was effective with effect from 1.11.1998 and the withdrawal telegram and letter was sent only on 17.11.1998. In other words, the resignation had become effective from 1.11.1998. The non communication of acceptance did not confer any right on the petitioner as the resignation became effective from 1.11.98. As a matter of fact, the question raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (2)LLJ,839 (North Zone Cultural Centre and another VS Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar). 4. In the present case, it is not disputed that there is no requirement that the resignation in order to be effective must be accepted. Therefore, the resignation become effective on its own force with effect from 1.11.1998 and the question of communication or non communication is immaterial. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, which is squarely applicable, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. No costs. Therefore, the resignation become effective on its own force with effect from 1.11.1998 and the question of communication or non communication is immaterial. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, which is squarely applicable, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. No costs. I must place on records for the fair manner of submissions of the learned senior counsel who had brought to my notice the decision cited above.