JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. The petitioner prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 14th February 2008 and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and all other consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 6th September 2000 under the respondent as a Craft Inspector in consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- with all the Government benefits. 3. The petitioner having excess balance of leave for which he gave a leave application to the respondent authority by letter dated 9th December 2007 to sanction his earned leave of 34 days. 4. The petitioner thereafter gave an application dated 12th December 2007 to the respondent authority to consider his voluntary resignation from his service w.e.f 12th March 2008 as he is not in a position to discharge his duty. 5. Prior to expiry of the completion of the resignation period the petitioner made representation dated 10th February 2008 to the respondent authority to withdraw his voluntary resignation and to treat the same as cancelled. 6. Thereafter, the respondent in spite of receiving the representation of the petitioner with respect to cancelling the voluntary resignation w.e.f 12th March 2008, passed an order dated 14th February 2008 that the petitioner's resignation is accepted and the petitioner is considered to be discharged from service and his name has been removed. 7. The petitioner preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 8314 of 2008. However, the same came to be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition taking averments with regard to the maintainability of the petition. Hence, the present petition. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the respondent has not considered the representation of the petitioner dated 10th February 2008. In spite of receiving the same the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 14th February 2008. The respondent has not given any reply immediately to the resignation letter issued by the petitioner dated 10th December 2007. Once the resignation is withdrawn prior to acceptance, then the respondent cannot act arbitrarily and terminating petitioner's service. In spite of receiving the same the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 14th February 2008. The respondent has not given any reply immediately to the resignation letter issued by the petitioner dated 10th December 2007. Once the resignation is withdrawn prior to acceptance, then the respondent cannot act arbitrarily and terminating petitioner's service. He has relied upon in the case of Union of India and Another v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarthy reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 158 wherein it is held that where withdrawal was sought even prior to acceptance of the resignation which was to be effective from a future date, in absence of any contrary statutory provision or rule, the right to withdraw cannot be denied merely on the basis of any policy decision of Govt. or certificate issued by the resigner himself at the time of tendering the resignation stating that he was aware that he could not later seek cancellation of his application for resignation. Similar view is taken in the case of Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. reported in (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 314 and in the case of Andhra Bank V.K. Sudha Nagaray, reported in 1999 SC (L&S) 793. 9. Learned advocate for the respondent has contended that on detailed inquiry it is found that the petitioner is in the employment at Pharmacy College, of Anand District. The petitioner was not interested to discharge his duties in the respondent No. 4 Institute and remained absent since October, 2007 and ultimately voluntarily tendered his resignation dated 12th December 2008 by respondent No. 4 which was accepted in view of the fact that the students are not having any other teacher. 10. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is found that the petitioner was in employment at Pharmacy college SARSA of Anand District. The petitioner was not interested to discharge his duties in the respondent No. 4 institute and remained absent since October 2007 and ultimately voluntarily tendered his resignation dated 12th December 2008 by the registered post to the respondent No. 4 Institute. The petitioner was not interested to discharge his duties in the respondent No. 4 institute and remained absent since October 2007 and ultimately voluntarily tendered his resignation dated 12th December 2008 by the registered post to the respondent No. 4 Institute. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that when the interest of the student as well as the teacher is seen the students should be protected and if there is dispute between the management and the teacher the same should not affect the students. 11. In the present case when a teacher is remaining absent the respondent institute would not be able to make alternative arrangement. Therefore the resignation was immediately accepted to protect the interest of the students. The facts of the present case is entirely different and hence in the present case the law declared by the Apex Court may not be applicable especially when the students at large are suffering in absence of teacher. It is not the case that the petitioner was on leave for genuine reason but he was working elsewhere. Further when he was not on duty the question of withdrawal does not arise. Therefore he is not entitled to any equitable justice. 11. In the premise this petition deserves to be dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.