1. This Election Petition is aimed at to challenge the mandate of respondent No. 4, who came to be affirmed as a successful candidate in the Assembly Elections from Langate Constituency No. 5, hereinafter for short as constituency, the result of which was declared on 25th of December, 2008, on the ground that he was disqualified for being chosen as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for that, he was working as a Deputy Manager in the Jammu and Kashmir Project Construction Corporation Limited, hereinafter for short as Corporation, and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir has more than 25% shares in it and that his nomination papers were in violation of mandate of Section 69(1) (e) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, hereinafter for short as Constitution, read with the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957, hereinafter for short as Act. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 appeared and filed their counter. Respondents 5 to 17 have chosen not to appear and accordingly were set ex-parte. 3. In their counter respondents 1 and 2 refute the averments of the petition on the ground that resignation of respondent No. 4 was accepted by the Corporation on 8th of November, 2008, thus he was not on the rolls of the said corporation on the date the scrutiny of the nomination papers took place viz. 12th of November, 2008. Further it is stated that State also had given its "No Objection" for the purpose. 4. What is stated by respondent No. 3 is also someway in tone with what the stand of respondents 1 and 2 is, that respondent No. 4 has submitted the resignation by the medium of a formal resignation letter dated 8th of November, 2008 and acceptance whereof has also been conveyed on the very same date, whereas the formal order to this effect has been issued on 30th of December 2008. It is further contended that the formal order would illustrate the acceptance is dated 8th of November, 2008. 5. The answering respondent No. 4, contested the petition in hand on variety of grounds briefly summed up herein below: - That the Election Petition, is not, in accordance with the provisions of, Section 89 and 125 of the Act. Summon along with the copy of Election Petition was sent to him along with the list of documents. 5. The answering respondent No. 4, contested the petition in hand on variety of grounds briefly summed up herein below: - That the Election Petition, is not, in accordance with the provisions of, Section 89 and 125 of the Act. Summon along with the copy of Election Petition was sent to him along with the list of documents. The petition is verified on 5th of February, 2008 and the Annexures appended thereon are shown to have been verified by the petitioner on different dated viz. 25th of February, 2009, 28th of February, 2009 and the receipt of deposit of Rs. 2000/-is shown to have been of 4th of February, 2009. The result of the election for the constituency was declared on December 25th, 2008, and the petition had to be filed within 45 days, reckoning the date of declaration of result, while as the petition in hand is filed on 6th of February, 2009 beyond the prescribed time limit, thus the election petition on the face of it is barred by time. 7. It is mandatory that the election petition is to be signed by the petitioner, but perusal of the election petition exhibits that 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th page relating to "MEMO OF PARTIES" "SYNOPSIS" and "SEQUENCE OF EVENTS" are not signed by the petitioner. The other pages are shown to have been signed by him but do not contain the required attestation as provided by Sub Section (3) of Section 89 of the Act. The annexures appended with the election petition are not signed and verified by the petitioner in terms of Section 91 (2) of the Act. 8. It is specifically pleaded by the answering respondent that he was working as a Deputy Manager in the Corporation, had tendered resignation which was accepted and thereby was not holding the office of profit either on the date of nomination or on the date of scrutiny. Nobody raised any objection against his candidature at the relevant point of time. 9. It is specifically denied that Corporation can execute all the works of State Govt. costing more than Rs. 15.00 lacs, it is further contended that the answering respondent submitted resignation to the competent authority, which in turn, conveyed him the acceptance through its Administrative officer vide his communication No. MD/PS/Estt/1/EC dated 08.11.2008. 9. It is specifically denied that Corporation can execute all the works of State Govt. costing more than Rs. 15.00 lacs, it is further contended that the answering respondent submitted resignation to the competent authority, which in turn, conveyed him the acceptance through its Administrative officer vide his communication No. MD/PS/Estt/1/EC dated 08.11.2008. The order No. 169 of 2008 dated 30th of December, 2008 is a subsequent order which confirms the acceptance of resignation w.e.f. 08.11.2008. Resignation of the answering respondent was absolute and was not conditional in any way. 10. Vide order dated 21.10.2009, following issues were structured, treated as legal, evidence was closed and parties were directed to address arguments. 1. Whether the election petition does not comply with the requirement of Sections 89 and 125 of J&K Representations of Peoples Act? if so, what is its effect? OPR-4 2. Whether the election petition is barred by limitation? if so, how? OPR-4 3. Whether respondent No, 4 was not eligible and qualified to contest the J&K Legislative Assembly Election 2008 for the single number Langate Constituency No. 5 as the resignation of respondent No. 4 was not accepted by the competent authority on the relevant date and his nomination papers came to be wrongly accepted by respondent No. 2 in violation of the provisions of J&K Constitution? OPP 4. In case issues 1 to 3 are decided in favour of petitioner, then in that eventuality to what relief he is entitled to? 11. The arguments put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner had main thrust on the factum of answering respondent having tendered the conditional resignation, the date of its acceptance and consequent whereof holding the office of profit at the relevant point of time. The counsel argued that the relationship of the employer and employee had not come to an end, thus the answering respondent was disqualified to contest the election. The communication made on 8th of November, 2008, and the formal order No. 169 of 2008 is not absolute but conditional. He was holding the office of profit in terms of mandate of Section 24 (d) of the Act. 12. To meet the contention of learned senior counsel for respondent No. 4 that certain requirements for verification of the petition have not been complied with, it is argued that defective verification is not enough to dismiss the petition. He was holding the office of profit in terms of mandate of Section 24 (d) of the Act. 12. To meet the contention of learned senior counsel for respondent No. 4 that certain requirements for verification of the petition have not been complied with, it is argued that defective verification is not enough to dismiss the petition. Finally counsel made reference and placed reliance on AIR 1954 SC 513 , AIR 1964 SC 1545 , AIR 1964 SC 2554, AIR 1965 SC 185, AIR 1969 SC 180 , AIR 1969 SC 604 , AIR 1969 SC 744 , AIR 1971 SC 342 , 1971 Vol. 3 SCC 870, AIR 1972 SC 1302 , 1975, AIR 1978 SC 140, 1027, SCC (Supp) 1, 1980 SLJ 88, AIR 1980 Rajasthan, 166, AIR 1989 SC 303, AIR 1991 Vol. 3, SC 375, AIR 1991 SC 169, AIR 1991 SC 1557 , AIR 1993 SC 1662 , AIR 1999 SC 1258 , AIR 2001 SC 216 , AIR 2001 Vol. 7 SC 425, AIR 2001 SC 2583 , 2004 SCC Vol. 4 Page 522, AIR 2008 Vol. 8 SC 240, AND JKPCC Rules, Rule 14 & 17, Sections 90, 91 109 of the Act, Section 69 of the Constitution. 13. Mr. Bhan, counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 argued that the resignation of respondent No. 4 was accepted by the Corporation on 8th of November, 2008 and no objection to this effect was raised by any of the candidates at the time of scrutiny. Thus the petitioner is precluded from raising such objection by the medium of this election petition. 14. Mr. Jan, Counsel for respondent No. 3 argued that resignation of respondent No. 4 was accepted on 8th of November, 2008 w.e.f. 6th of November, 2008 and he ceased to be an employee of the Corporation there and then. The employer-employee relationship had come to an end on 6th of November, 2008 itself, which was subsequently confirmed by the formal order No. 169 of 2008 dated 30th of December, 2008. The Counsel made reliance in support of his arguments to the Apex Court judgment reported as 1975 SCC (supp) 1 Para 157. 15. Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. The employer-employee relationship had come to an end on 6th of November, 2008 itself, which was subsequently confirmed by the formal order No. 169 of 2008 dated 30th of December, 2008. The Counsel made reliance in support of his arguments to the Apex Court judgment reported as 1975 SCC (supp) 1 Para 157. 15. Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 4 argued that the documents produced by both the sides have been accepted by the parties by design as a result whereof the letter dated 8th of November, 2008 and formal order No. 169 of 2008 stand accepted by the petitioner, thus there was no need to prove the said documents. Because of the admission of petitioner there remains no dispute vis-a-vis the date of resignation and its acceptance, the answering respondent ceased to be an employee of the Corporation with effect from the date of acceptance viz. 8th of November, 2008 which was later on confirmed by the formal order and no objection has ever been raised or entertained anywhere at the time of scrutiny, thus the petition merits to be dismissed only on this count. 16. Further he argued that petition is not maintainable because it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Constitution. The annexures annexed with the election petition are its integral part, have not been verified in accordance with the provisions of Section 81 (3) of the Act. Summons, copies of election petition and the annexures, as sent by the petitioner, were received by respondent No. 4 and the petitioner has admitted, in the court, those documents to be the same which were made available by the writ petitioner. Their verification is not in accordance with Section 81, 91 hence merits to be dismissed. That petitioner has not presented the petition himself which was required as per the mandate of Apex Court judgment reported as AIR SCW 2006 P. 5699. The petition is barred by time, the details of which are given in the reply. Mr. Shah placed reliance on: 1958 SCR, 387, 1964 SCR 311 , AIR 1964 SC 1546, AIR 1969 SC 180 , AIR 1971 SC 342 , AIR 1972 SC 1302 , AIR 1980 SC 303 , AIR 1984 SC 524, 1985 SCC Vol. 1, 1691, AIR 1991 SC 1557 , 1992 SCC Vol. Mr. Shah placed reliance on: 1958 SCR, 387, 1964 SCR 311 , AIR 1964 SC 1546, AIR 1969 SC 180 , AIR 1971 SC 342 , AIR 1972 SC 1302 , AIR 1980 SC 303 , AIR 1984 SC 524, 1985 SCC Vol. 1, 1691, AIR 1991 SC 1557 , 1992 SCC Vol. 4, 404, AIR 1993 SC 1662 , AIR 1999 SC 1359 , 2001 (2) SCC 19 , AIR 2001 SC 36 , 2001 (7) SCC 425 , AIR 2003 SC 51 , AIR 2003 SC 534 , 2004 SCC Vol. 4, 522 and AIR SCW 2006, 5068. 17. At the very outset I feel it appropriate to decide the issue No. 3 which probably would decide the fate of the petition. 18. Admittedly respondent No. 4 has tendered resignation by a formal application through his immediate officer in the Corporation and acceptance whereof was conveyed vide letter No. MD/PS/Estt./I-EC dated 8th of November, 2008. It is apt to reproduce the sad communication herein: - "On the basis of your recommendations, lam directed to convey that the resignation tendered by Mr. Ab. Rashid Sheikh Asst. Manager of your unit has been accepted with immediate effect. However, formal orders shall be issued separately." 19. While going through this acceptance letter, it is crystal clear that the Corporation has accepted the resignation and it was conveyed to respondent No. 4 unconditionally, and thereafter a formal order came to be passed on 30th of December 2008. The bare perusal of the communication and order supra leads one to inescapable conclusion that the resignation was accepted w.e.f. 8th of November, 2008. Thus the respondent No. 4 was not an employee of the Corporation on 12th of November, 2008 the date of scrutiny of the nomination papers. 20. The corporation has produced relevant record i.e. office notings which also disclose that the resignation of respondent No. 4 was accepted on the day when the application for the same was moved viz. 6th of November, 2008 and conveyed vide communication dated 8th of November, 2008. It is also recorded in one of the notings that outstanding if any is recoverable from the gratuity/accumulation of CP Fund and the Deputy General Manager was asked to process his case in accordance with the rules for grant of gratuity, cash in lieu of leave salary, accumulation of CP. Fund under rules. 21. It is also recorded in one of the notings that outstanding if any is recoverable from the gratuity/accumulation of CP Fund and the Deputy General Manager was asked to process his case in accordance with the rules for grant of gratuity, cash in lieu of leave salary, accumulation of CP. Fund under rules. 21. Apex Court in case titled Moti Ram Vs. Param Dev reported as AIR 1993 SC 1662 held that in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation, there must be an intention to give up or relinquish office. It is apt to reproduce Para 15 of the said judgment herein: - "As pointed out by this court, 'resignation' means the spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right and in relation to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It has been held that in the general justice sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act of its relinquish-ment. It has also been observed that the act of relinquishment may take different forms or assume a unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office and conditions governing it. (See: Union of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra, 1978 (3) SCR 12 at P. 21: ( AIR 1978 SC 694 at pp. 699-700). If the act of relinquishment is of unilateral character, it comes into effect when such act indicating the intention to relinquish the office is communicated to the competent authority. The authority to whom the act of relinquishment is communicated is not required to take any action and the relinquishment takes effect from the date of such communication where the resignation is intended to operate inpraesenti. A resignation may also be prospective to be operative from a future date and in that event it would take effect from the date indicated therein and not from, the date of communication. A resignation may also be prospective to be operative from a future date and in that event it would take effect from the date indicated therein and not from, the date of communication. In cases where the act of relinquishment is of a bilateral character, the communication of the intention to relinquish, by itself, would not be sufficient to result in relinquishment of the office and some action is required to be taken on such communication of the intention to relinquish, e.g., acceptance of the said request to relinquish the office, and in such a case the relinquishment does not become effective or operative till such action is taken. As to whether the act of relinquishment of an office is unilateral or bilateral in character would depend upon the nature of the office and the conditions governing it." 22. Applying the test to the instant case, it can safely be held that respondent No. 4 has tendered the resignation intentionally and to give up the office in order to contest the election. It was absolute and it stands accepted by the employer-respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 8th of November, 2008, followed by the formal order supra. 23. In a case titled Jaipal Singh versus Smt. Sumitra Mahajan and others reported in 2004 SCC Vol. 4, 522 the Apex Court has held that the relationship of employer and employee terminates on acceptance of resignation whereas in the case of retirement voluntary or of superannuation the relationship continues for purposes of payment of retiral benefits. 24. Apex Court has held in a case titled Chand Mai Chayal versus State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2006 SCW 5068 that once the resignation is accepted jural relationship between employer and the employee comes to an end. Apex Court has also held in a case titled Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi versus Shri Raj Narain reported as 1975 SCC (supp) P. 1, has also laid down the same principle. 25. Keeping in view the contents contained n admitted documents supra, the resignation was unconditional, was accepted on 8th of November, 2008 w.e.f. 6th of November, 2008. Thus there was no jural relationship existing on the relevant date muchless the one provided by the Constitution or by the Jammu and Kashmir Employees Service Rules and Resignation. Thus the argument of Mr. Keeping in view the contents contained n admitted documents supra, the resignation was unconditional, was accepted on 8th of November, 2008 w.e.f. 6th of November, 2008. Thus there was no jural relationship existing on the relevant date muchless the one provided by the Constitution or by the Jammu and Kashmir Employees Service Rules and Resignation. Thus the argument of Mr. Jahangir that relationship between employer and employee continued and respondent No. 4 was in service at the relevant point of time is devoid of any force. 26. In the given circumstances, the issue is decided in favour of respondent No. 4 and against the petitioner. Having said so, there is no need to discuss the other issues, accordingly the election of respondent No. 4 is upheld and the election petition is dismissed.