JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a former Laboratory Assistant, has prayed for the following reliefs; “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition. (B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to accept the petitioner’s letter withdrawing her resignation dated 29.05.2003 and Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the orders dated 10.4.2003 and 17.4.2003 at Annexures E and F to this petition whereby the resignation of the petitioner was accepted. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders dated 10.4.2003 and 17.4.2003 at Annexure E and F to this petition whereby the resignation of the petitioner was accepted and further direct the respondents and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties as Laboratory Assistant. (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the writ applicant may be summarized as under; 2.1 The writ applicant joined the services of the respondent No.1-College as a Laboratory Assistant in the year 1991. The appointment letter reads as under; “With reference to your Application dated 27.8.2000 I have the pleasure to inform you that you have been appointed as an Laboratory Assistant on Rs. As per Govt. rules per month in the scale of Rs. As per Govt. rules with effect from 10.11.2000 you will be given compensatory Local Allowance Rs.- House Allowance Rs. As per Govt. rules and Dearness Allowance Rs. As per Govt. Rules per month. Your appointment is purely temporary permanent. The condition of service will be according to Government Rules If a reply accepting the appointment is not received within 7 days the place will be filled up otherwise.” 2.2 While she was serving as the Laboratory Assistant, due to personal reasons and compelling circumstances, she thought fit to tender her resignation dated 3rd March, 2003 having regard to the three months’ mandatory notice period. The writ applicant made herself very clear that her resignation would come into effect on expiry of the period of three months’ notice. 2.3 It appears that before the expiry of the three months’ notice period, the management thought fit to accept the resignation on 10th April, 2003 vide its resolution No.20/2003. 2.4 The writ applicant, on the second thought, withdrew the resignation by addressing a letter dated 29th May, 2003, which is at page-34, Annexure-F to this writ application. Thus, before the three months’ notice period could come to an end, the writ applicant withdrew the resignation. 2.5 The Management, however, declined to permit her to rejoin, as according to the management, her resignation came to be accepted much before the writ applicant thought fit to withdraw the same. In such circumstances, the writ applicant has come up with this writ application. 3. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant, vehemently submitted that assuming for the moment that the management accepted the resignation before the expiry of the notice period of 90 days, it was still open for his client to withdraw the resignation. The acceptance of the resignation by the management before the expiry of 90 days, by itself, would not be an embargo for the writ applicant to withdraw the resignation. In support of this submissions, Mr. Desai has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2354 and Punjab National Bank vs. P.K. Mittal, AIR 1989 SC 1083 . Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Srikantha S.M. vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 314 . Mr. Desai has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Power Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, (1997) 4 SCC 280 . He has also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of N.A. Vasava vs. Chief Refinary Coordinator, Letters Patent Appeal No.979 of 1996, decided on 9th July, 1997. 4. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Desai prays that there being merit in this writ application, the same may be allowed and the reliefs, as prayed for, be granted. 5. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. 4. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Desai prays that there being merit in this writ application, the same may be allowed and the reliefs, as prayed for, be granted. 5. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Buch, the learned counsel appearing for the management and Mr. Goutam, the learned AGP appearing for the State-respondents. 6. Mr. Buch submits that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by his client in accepting the resignation and relieving the writ applicant before the expiry of the period of 90 days. He would submit that in the wake of certain developments, which have taken place during the pendency of this writ application, the issue of writ would be futile. The reason for such submission is that the college is now closed. He further pointed out that two of its employees were absorbed by the State Government in the other institutes, i.e., the grant-in-aid institutes. 7. According to Mr. Buch, the reinstatement in service is not possible in the wake of such developments. 8. Mr. Buch, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 180 . 9. The learned AGP would submit that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Government might have absorbed the two employees of the respondent No.1-college, but that does not mean that the Government is under any legal obligation to absorb the writ applicant also and accommodate her in any other grant-in-aid college. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is what is the effective date of resignation? Whether it can be accepted before the said effective date preventing the person tendering the resignation from revoking the same before the said effective date? 11. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either sides, let me look into some of the provisions of law, which governs resignation. 12. Whether it can be accepted before the said effective date preventing the person tendering the resignation from revoking the same before the said effective date? 11. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either sides, let me look into some of the provisions of law, which governs resignation. 12. Section 40(C) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, reads as under; “If a teacher desires to tender his resignation he shall tender the same in person to the administrative officer of the school board in jurisdiction of which the school is situated and the recognition of a teacher warded to the manager by the administrative officer duly endorsed. The acceptance of any resignation tendered in contravention of this section shall be ineffective.” 13. Rule 42 of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949, in Schedule-F, reads as under; “Resignation; (1) No permanent teacher shall resign without giving a three months’ notice. (2) No temporary teacher shall resign without giving one months notice; provided that no notice by a teacher shall be valid unless it is given through the Administrative Officer, concerned. (3) A temporary teacher giving notice during the vacation or at the beginning of the school year shall not be entitled to vacation pay.” 14. The plain reading of section 40(C) would indicate that if a teacher is desirous to resign from the service, then such resignation has to be routed through the administrative officer of the State Government. The acceptance of any resignation tendered in contravention of section 40(C) would be ineffective. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that section 40(C) of the Act was complied with. 15. Rule 42 referred to above would indicate that a permanent teacher, if is desirous of tendering the resignation, would be able to do so after giving a three months’ notice. In the case of a temporary teacher, after giving one month’s notice. 16. So far as the resignation tendered by the writ applicant herein is concerned, the same was tendered giving three months’ notice. The writ applicant made herself very clear that the period of 90 days would come to an end in June, 2003 and the resignation would be effective from that particular date, i.e., the 91st day from the date of the resignation. 17. The writ applicant made herself very clear that the period of 90 days would come to an end in June, 2003 and the resignation would be effective from that particular date, i.e., the 91st day from the date of the resignation. 17. However, it appears that the resignation was taken into consideration by the management in one of its meetings convened on 5th April, 2003 and vide the Resolution No. 20/2003, the same was accepted. After accepting the resignation, the management addressed a letter dated 17th April, 2003 to the writ applicant asking her to handover the charge to one Shri Vinubhai N. Rajvadi on or before 17th May, 2003. 18. Before handing over the charge and relieving herself, the writ applicant withdrew the resignation on 29th May, 2003, i.e. two days before the expiry of the period of 90 days. 19. Having regard to the rule referred to above, the resignation will not be effective otherwise than on the expiry of three months from the service of such notice. There are two ways to look at the matter. One is that the resignation of an employee from the service, being a voluntary act on the part of an employee, he or she is entitled to choose the date with effect from which his/her resignation would be effective and give a notice to the employer accordingly. The only restriction is that the proposed date should not be less than three months from the date on which the notice is given of the proposed resignation. On this interpretation, the letter dated 3rd March, 2003 sent by the writ applicant fully complied with the rule. The writ applicant made herself clear that she wished to resign with effect from 3rd June, 2003 and so the resignation would have become effective only on that date. The other interpretation is that when an employee gives a notice of resignation, it becomes effective on the expiry of three months from the date thereof. On this interpretation, the respondent’s resignation would have taken effect on or about 3rd June, 2003 even if the employee had mentioned a later date. In either view of the matter, the writ applicant’s resignation did not become effective till 2nd June, 2003. It would have normally automatically taken effect on 3rd June, 2003. On this interpretation, the respondent’s resignation would have taken effect on or about 3rd June, 2003 even if the employee had mentioned a later date. In either view of the matter, the writ applicant’s resignation did not become effective till 2nd June, 2003. It would have normally automatically taken effect on 3rd June, 2003. I have not been shown any rule which permits the employer to accept the resignation before the expiry of the period, i.e., three months’ notice period. The fact that the management accepted the resignation before the expiry of the three months’ notice period, by itself, is not sufficient to say that the writ applicant, thereafter, had no right to withdraw her resignation, i.e. before the expiry of the 90 days period. 20. Let me look into the case law on the subject. In Jai Ram Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 1954 SC 584 , the Apex Court considered the case of self-seeking retirement of an employee under the Fundamental Rules and held as under:- "It may be conceded that it is open to a servant, who has expressed a desire to retire from service and applied to his superior officer, to give him the requisite permission to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained; but he can be allowed to do so as long as he continues in service and not after he has been terminated" 21. In Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 1969 SC 180 , the Apex Court considered the case of resignation tendered by a member of the Indian Administrative Service on 21-8-64. His case for acceptance of resignation was recommended by the State Government and the Government of India accepted his resignation vide order dated 31-12-64 but asked the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan "to intimate the date on which the (employee) was relieved of his duties so that a formal notification could be issued in that behalf." The officer filed an application on 27-11-64 to withdraw his resignation. However, vide order dated 29-3-65, he was directed to be relieved. However, vide order dated 29-3-65, he was directed to be relieved. When he approached the High Court for quashing the order dated 29-3-65 and also the order dated 31-10-64, the High Court rejected his case holding that till the resignation was accepted by the Authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned had locus poenitentiae but not thereafter. The resignation became effective on the date of its acceptance by the Government of India and a subsequent withdrawal of the resignation was ineffective even if acceptance of the resignation was not intimated to him. The Court held as under:- "The letters written by the appellant on 21-8-64 and 30- 8-64 did not indicate that the resignation was not to become effective until acceptance thereof was intimated to the appellant. The appellant informed the Authorities of the State of Rajasthan that his resignation may be forwarded for early acceptance. On the plain terms of the letters, the resignation was to become effective as soon as it was accepted by the appointing authority." 22. The Apex Court further held that there may be some executive instructions dealing with the subject, having no statutory force, but the same cannot come to the rescue of either side in such a case; however, not passing any order on the application for resignation for a long period, may justify an inference that the resignation has not been accepted. 23. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra & ors., AIR 1978 SC 694 , dealt with the case of resignation by a Sitting Judge of Allahabad High Court to become effective from a future date. The majority view reads as under:- "It will be repetition that the general principle 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 resign or...... If he chooses to resign from a future date, the act of resigning office is not complete because it does not terminate his tenure before such date and the Judge can, at any time before arrival of prospective date on which it was intended to be effective, withdraw it, because the Constitution does not bar such withdrawal." 24. If he chooses to resign from a future date, the act of resigning office is not complete because it does not terminate his tenure before such date and the Judge can, at any time before arrival of prospective date on which it was intended to be effective, withdraw it, because the Constitution does not bar such withdrawal." 24. In P. Kasilingam Vs. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789 , the Apex Court approved the law laid down in the cases of Raj Kumar & Gopal Chandra Misra (supra), but did not decide as to whether the resignation tendered and accepted immediately thereafter on 19-3-1976, could be withdrawn on a subsequent date as the employee a teacher was directed to be relieved with a future date considering the interest of the students and the dominant issue remained as to whether the resignation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, had been tendered voluntarily an in view thereof, the matter was remanded to the Government to decide afresh on certain points. 25. In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Brojonath Ganguli, AIR 1986 SC 1571 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if an employee is not permitted by terms of his contract of employment to determine the relationship of master and servant, such an employment may tantamount to practicing bounded labour. The Court held as under:- "By entering upon a contract of employment, a person does not sign a bond of salary and a permanent employee cannot the deprived of his right to resign. A resignation by an employee would, however, normally require to be accepted by the employer in order to be effective." 26. The Court further held that in certain circumstances, the employer may be justified in not accepting the resignation if the employee wants to leave in middle of the work which is of an urgent nature or very important and for the completion of which his participation is necessary. Resignation may also not be accepted if an employee wants to escape the consequences of an adverse finding against him in a domestic enquiry. 27. In Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2354 , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the case where rules required that the withdrawal of resignation may be subject to the approval of the Authority. 27. In Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2354 , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the case where rules required that the withdrawal of resignation may be subject to the approval of the Authority. The Court also considered the guidelines, on the basis of which the Competent Authority could consider the application for withdrawal which, inter alia, contained a condition that there must be a material change in the circumstances, in consideration of which a notice was originally given. The Court held that in ordinary circumstances, there should be no embargo on the employee's choice or freedom not to continue in employment. "If, however, the administration had made arrangement acting on his resignation or letter of retirement to make other employee available for his job, that would be another matter, but the employee's offer to retire or withdraw" should not be in quick succession. The withdrawal should not adversely affect the administrative set-up or its arrangement. The Court further observed as under:- "In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange one's future with any amount of certainty, a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardise the Government or Administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement." 28. However, that was a case wherein the resignation was tendered to be effective with a future date as the letter under Section 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was given with a three months' notice on 1-1-81 to be effective on 31-3-81. 29. In Punjab National Bank Vs. P.K. Mittal, AIR 1989 SC 1083 , the Supreme Court again examined the case wherein the employee tendered his resignation on 21-1-86 to be effective on 30-6-86. The resignation was accepted on 7-2-86 pointing out that it had been accepted by the Authority with immediate effect. The Apex Court held that the Authority had no competence to advance the date of its effectiveness and resignation, if accepted, could have become effective only on 30-6-86 and as the resignation was to be effective with future date, the employee had a right to withdraw the same prior to 30-6-86. The Court further observed that there has to be specific provisions to regulate the process of acceptance of resignation and its withdrawal. The Court further observed that there has to be specific provisions to regulate the process of acceptance of resignation and its withdrawal. However, if there are certain Statutory Rules then the same have to be observed, but once an employee has chosen a future date on which resignation would be effective, he cannot be forced to resign before such a date. 30. In M/s. J.K Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 1990 SC 1808 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the meaning of "resign" and "retire" as under:- Name of the Meaning of 'Resign' Meaning of 'Retire' Black's Law Formal renouncement or To terminate employ- Dictionary relinquishment of an ment or service upon (5th Edn.) office. reaching retirement age. Shorter Oxford To relinquish, surrender The act of retiring English give up or hand over or withdrawing to Dictionary (something); esp., an or from a place or (Revised Edn. office, position, right, position. of 1973) claim, etc. To give up an office or position. The Random To give up an office, To withdraw from House position etc.; to office, business or Dictionary relinquish (right, active life. (College Edn.) claim, agreement etc.) 31. In Moti Ram Vs. Param Dev & Anr., AIR 1993 SC 1162 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the case of resignation in relation to the election petition as to whether on a particular date, the candidate was holding the office or not as he happened to be the Chairman of Himachal Pradesh Khadi & Village Industries Board. Karam Singh had resigned w.e.f. 31-1-90 with immediate effect and filed his nomination thereafter. The last date of scrutiny was 5-2-90 and on that date his nomination was accepted. The Court pointed out that the resignation may be with immediate effect or may be prospective, i.e. to be operative from a future date and as 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. In a general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation, there must be intention to give up or relinquishing the office or the concoctive act of its relinquishment. In a general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation, there must be intention to give up or relinquishing the office or the concoctive act of its relinquishment. The Court further observed that the act of relinquishment may take different forms or assume a unilateral or bilateral character depending upon the nature of office and the conditions governing it. In cases where the act of relinquishment is of 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. In that case, the relinquishment was of a unilateral character requiring no acceptance, i.e. stood accepted as soon as it was tendered. On this basis, his nomination was held to be valid. 32. In Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Parmod Kumar Bhatia, (1997) 4 SCC 280 , the Supreme Court examined the case of a conditional resignation. The employee tendered the resignation under a Scheme on 20-12-94 to come into effect on 31-12-94 with demand of outstanding dues and to hand over the relieving certificate. The submission made before the Court was that as the voluntary retirement of the employee was a conditional one and he himself understood that unless he was relieved of the duties after payment of the outstanding dues, the voluntary retirement would not be effective. The Court held that as the employee rightly understood that unless he was relieved of the duty of the post after payment of the outstanding dues, the order accepting his voluntary retirement did not become effective. However, the Court observed as under:- "It is now settled legal position that unless employee is relieved of the duty, jural relationship of the employee and employer does not come to an end. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the condition ought to have been complied with. Before the condition could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective, therefore, no vested right has been created in favour of respondent." 33. In Nandkeshwar Prasad Vs. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the condition ought to have been complied with. Before the condition could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective, therefore, no vested right has been created in favour of respondent." 33. In Nandkeshwar Prasad Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 461 , the Apex Court held that unless the issue of resignation is controlled by the Conditions of Service or the Statutory Provisions, the retirement or resignation must take effect from the date mentioned therein and such date cannot be advanced by accepting the resignation from an earlier date when the employee concerned did not intend to retire from such earlier date and the employee concerned has a right to withdraw the letter of resignation before the same becomes effective. 34. In J.N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1571, the Apex Court again considered the case of prospective resignation tendered on 31-10-89 to come into effect on 31-1-90 and withdrawn on 2-11-89. The Court held that as it was a prospective resignation, it could be withdrawn prior to the date of its being effective. Similar view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project & Development India Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 1341 ; and Bank of India & ors. Vs. O.P. Swanakar, 2003 AIR SCW 313. 35. In Union of India Vs. Wg. Comm. T. Parthasarathy, (2001) 1 SCC 158 , the Apex Court considered the case of a prospective resignation submitted on 31-7-85 to become effective on 31-8-86 and withdrawn on 19-2-86 but the withdrawal application was rejected on the ground that under the existing policy, there was no scope of withdrawal. The Court reiterated the law that a prospective resignation becomes effective from the date given by the employee and it can be withdrawn prior to the date of its commencement into effect. The Court further held that the right to withdraw cannot be curtailed by any Executive Instructions or Policy Decision and unless there are statutory rules prohibiting such withdrawal, the right of an employee to withdraw is not acceptable. The Court further held that the right to withdraw cannot be curtailed by any Executive Instructions or Policy Decision and unless there are statutory rules prohibiting such withdrawal, the right of an employee to withdraw is not acceptable. However, the Court distinguished the case from Raj Kumar (supra) and held that the facts in that case were quite distinguishable and observed as under:- "The reliance placed for the appellant on the decision reported in Raj Kumar is inappropriate to the facts of this case. In that case this Court merely emphasized the position that when a public servant has invited, by his letter of resignation the termination of his employment, his services clearly stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the Appropriate Authority and in absence of any law or Rules governing the conditions of service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the Appropriate Authority." 36. The Court further held that right of an employee to continue in service till he reaches the age of superannuation, i.e. even withdrawal of resignation of a prospective nature, cannot be curtailed by circulars/policy decision etc. having no Statutory force. 37. In K.L.E. Society Vs. Dr. R.R. Patil & Anr., (2002) 5 SCC 278 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined a case where the notice for voluntary retirement submitted by the employee to retire him at the earliest, but the employer instead of passing any order on his application vested him with the additional duties and the employee accepted the same without any protest. The Court held that the retirement could have become effective immediately after the expiry of the notice period provided under the Statute, but as the employer continued working with additional duties even after the expiry of the said period, the conduct of the employee and employer made the application for voluntary retirement infructuous and inoperative. 38. In P. Lal Vs. Union of India & ors., 2003 AIR SCW 849, the Apex Court held that the retirement becomes effective, when notice for it by the employee stands accepted by the employer, if it is not to become effective with a future date, even if it has not been communicated to the employee. 38. In P. Lal Vs. Union of India & ors., 2003 AIR SCW 849, the Apex Court held that the retirement becomes effective, when notice for it by the employee stands accepted by the employer, if it is not to become effective with a future date, even if it has not been communicated to the employee. Thus the Court rejected the contention that even in such a case order of acceptance shall not become effective unless it is communicated to the employee as happens in other cases where the termination order is passed after initiating disciplinary proceedings or employee being convicted by the competent criminal court. 39. In Vruddhula Kalyana Rama Rao vs. National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development, Bombay, 1994 (4) SLR 166, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held as under; “9. Coming to the next point with regard to the date of effectiveness of the resignation, Mr. D.V. Seetharama Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra, , Balram Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 2354, D. Sundera Rao v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, 1973 (2) APLJ 382 , K.L. MHAJ Sekhar v. Osmania University, 1989 (1) ALT 365. Mr. K. Srinivasa Murthy has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India, and Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi. The judgment in Gopal Chandra's case (supra) is that of Constitutional Bench and ruled that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment, office or tenure of the resignor. It was further held that in the case of a Government servant, the resignation is not an unilateral act, but it is a bilateral act and until resignation is accepted, the same does not become effective and that before becoming effective, the said resignation can be withdrawn. The distinction stated regarding the constitutional functionary is not relevant for this case. Following the said judgment, it was held in Balram Gupta's case (supra) that a notice of 3 months of voluntary retirement given by the employee could be withdrawn within the time prior to the expiry of the notice period. The distinction stated regarding the constitutional functionary is not relevant for this case. Following the said judgment, it was held in Balram Gupta's case (supra) that a notice of 3 months of voluntary retirement given by the employee could be withdrawn within the time prior to the expiry of the notice period. The Supreme Court emphatically held that the order allowing to retire prospectively on expiry of notice period without allowing the withdrawal of the notice is bad and illegal. A Division Bench of this Court in Sundera Rao's case (supra) took the same view that till the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice of resignation, the relationship of master and servant continues and that the employee continues in service and that the employee has a right to withdraw his offer of resignation before it becomes irrevocable and it would be irrevocable only on the expiry of three months and the acceptance become binding on the parties and that the resignation cannot be accepted before the expiry of the term specified in the notice. A learned single Judge of this Court has followed the view in K.L. MHAJ Sekhar v. Osmania University, 1989(1) ALT 365 and held that before the period mentioned in the notice the resignation cannot be accepted and cannot be given effect to. The said judgment is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 2354. 10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement in Balram Gupta's case (supra) following the earlier Supreme Court Judgment in Gopal Chandra's case (supra), I cannot countenance the argument of Mr. K. Srinivasa Murthy. That apart, the decisions rendered in Raj Kumar's case (supra) and Raj Naraian's case (supra) are based on their own facts which are not similar to the one on hand. The judgment rendered in Balram Gupta's case (supra) which is in consonance with the earlier Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopal Chandra's case (supra) and followed by this Court, applies to this case on all fours. The judgment rendered in Balram Gupta's case (supra) which is in consonance with the earlier Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopal Chandra's case (supra) and followed by this Court, applies to this case on all fours. In the circumstances, I hold that before 31st July, 1987, there was no power or authority for the respondents to accept the resignation of the petitioner and his letter dated 11-6-1989 withdrawing his resignation letter dated 29-4-1987 was valid in law and as such the resignation letter dated 29-4-1987 has become inoperative and consequently the act of the respondents in depriving the petitioner of his continuance in duties is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.” 40. In V. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy S/o. V. Venkat Reddy vs. Andhra Bank (A Govt. of India Undertaking) Personnal Department, 2008(3) ALT 428 , a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, N.V. Ramana, J. (as his lordship then was), relying on Punjab National Bank (supra) and Balram Gupta (supra), held as under; “There is no doubt that the Deputy General Manager (Per) vide his letter dated 21.04.2004 informed the petitioner that his application dated 12.04.2004 for voluntary retirement under the Pension Regulations has been accepted and that he will be relieved from the Bank's service on 11.07.2004, but the fact remains, in such acceptance, the respondents did not sever the relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the respondents immediately on acceptance, for the petitioner was informed that he would be relieved from service on 11.07.2004. The fact whether the date of acceptance or the date on which the employee is to be relieved is crucial for determining the eligibility of the employee to withdraw his resignation/voluntary retirement, was considered by the apex Court in Balram Gupta v. Union of India. The apex Court, in the said case, while rejecting the contention of the government that once notice of resignation is issued and accepted, it would amount to dissolution of contract between the employee and the employer immediately, held that the dissolution of contract would be brought about only on the date indicated, that is the date of relieving, and up to that date the employee was a government employee, and as such, he has locus poenitentiae to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. The apex Court in Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal, while finding fault with the decision taken by the Bank in accepting the resignation of the employee with immediate effect, held that resignation of the employee would become effective only on the expiry of the three months notice from the date thereof or from the date on which he wished to resign, and as such, it was open to the employee to withdraw his letter of resignation before the expiry of the notice period. In holding so, it referred to its earlier judgments in Raj Kumar v. Union of India , Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Balram Gupta. The apex Court in J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India, following the judgment in Balram Gupta, held that the appellant before it cannot be said to have no locus standi to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement before 31.01.1990, on which date he was to be relieved from service. Again in Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India, the apex Court following its judgments in Balram Gupta, J.N. Srivastava and Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, held that resignation, in spite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the "effective date". In Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., the apex Court while upholding the contention of the employee that even though the company accepted his resignation on 04.01.1993 and ordered that he would be relieved on that day, but having regard to the fact that by subsequent letter, granted casual leave from 05.01.1993 to 13.01.1993, and informed him that he would be relieved from service after office hours on 15.01.1993, held that in its opinion vinculum juris continued and the relationship of employer and employee did not come to an end on 04.01.1993, and that it continued up to 15.01.1993, and as such, the employee was entitled to withdraw his resignation. “ In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, it can safely be said that since the petitioner was to be relieved from service after expiry of the three months notice period on 11.07.2004, he shall be deemed to be continued to be employee of the respondents-Bank upto that date and as such, he had the locus poenitentiae to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the said date. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 41. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized that the resignation means the formal renouncement or relinquishment of office having an effect of termination of employment/service. An employee has a right to resign or seek premature retirement, however, subject to the statutory provisions, if any, governing the same. The retirement may be sought with immediate effect/ earliest possible time or prospectively, i.e. to be effective from a future date. The intention of the employee seeking retirement is of paramount importance. The acceptance of the application for retirement is to be considered as per the law applicable, if any, otherwise also it would depend whether it requires acceptance at all. In case the relinquishment of office is of unilateral character, as was found to be in the case of Moti Ram (supra), the resignation stands accepted as soon as it is tendered. But in case resignation requires acceptance, the Authority has to consider it and pass an appropriate order. The Authority may refuse to accept the resignation if an employee is seeking retirement just to avoid the adverse findings in a disciplinary proceeding pending/contemplated against him or his services cannot be dispensed with because of the nature of work/project. In case the resignation is not of a prospective nature, it becomes effective as soon as it is accepted by the Competent Authority and even the non-communication of the said order to the resignee would be immaterial and the employee cannot seek withdrawal of the application thereafter. In fact, the effectiveness of the resignation would depend upon the facts of an individual case. However, resignation must have been tendered voluntarily and by no means it should have been obtained by coercion or fraud. Employer does not have a right to prepone the date of effectiveness of resignation as it is the sole discretion of the employee as from which date he wants to retire. In case of a prospective resignation, the employee has a right to withdraw the resignation prior to the date it becomes effective and not subsequent to it. (see Union of India vs. Sanohar 2004 (1) SCT 30). 42. In case of a prospective resignation, the employee has a right to withdraw the resignation prior to the date it becomes effective and not subsequent to it. (see Union of India vs. Sanohar 2004 (1) SCT 30). 42. So far as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar (supra) is concerned, the same would not be of any help to the respondent No.1-management because the Supreme Court interpreted clauses-(c) and (d) of a circular issued on 6th May, 1958 by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Clauses (c) and (d) reads as under; (c) The competent authority should decide the date with effect from which the resignation should become effective. In cases covered by (b) (I) above, the date would be that with effect from which alternative arrangements can be made for filling the post. Where an officer is on leave, the competent authority should decide whether he will accept the resignation with immediate effect or with effect from the date following the termination of the leave. Where a period of notice is prescribed which a Government servant should give when he wishes to resign from service, the competent authority may decide to count the period of leave towards the notice period. In other case also it is open to the competent authority to decide whether the resignation should become effective immediately or with effect from some prospective date. (d) A resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and the officer is relieved of his duties. Where a resignation has not become effective and the officer wishes to withdraw, it is open to the authority which accepted the resignation either to permit the officer to withdraw the resignation or to refuse the request for such withdrawal. Where, however, a resignation has become effective, the officer is no longer in Government service and acceptance of the request for withdrawal of resignation would amount to re-employing him in service after condoning the period of break.” 43. Thus, interpreting the two clauses referred to above, the Supreme Court took the view that having once accepted the resignation, the subsequent withdrawal of resignation was ineffective. In my view this decision of the Supreme Court is of no avail to the respondent No.1-College. 44. Thus, interpreting the two clauses referred to above, the Supreme Court took the view that having once accepted the resignation, the subsequent withdrawal of resignation was ineffective. In my view this decision of the Supreme Court is of no avail to the respondent No.1-College. 44. In view of the above, I hold that the acceptance of the resignation by the Management in its meeting convened on 5th April, 2003, was not a valid acceptance. The writ applicant could not be said to have been relieved from the service, thereby putting an end to the relationship of employer and employee. Before such relationship could be said to have come to an end legally, the resignation was withdrawn. 45. The writ applicant’s tale of woes does not come to an end over here. As pointed out earlier that the school is now closed, reinstatement in service seems to be difficult. The effect of this order would be that the writ applicant would be considered as having continued in service till the school was officially declared as closed. The school got closed in June, 2014. 46. Mr. Goutam, the learned AGP, has placed on record a letter dated 22nd September, 2016 of the District Education Officer, Bharuch, giving the details of one Shrii V.N. Rajvadi, a Craft Teacher and Smt. Vimal B. Rajvadi, an Assistant Teacher being absorbed in a Government Secondary School, Motasorva, Ta: Zagadiya, District: Bharuch. 47. Mr. Buch also submitted that this writ application may not be entertained in view of the efficacious alternative remedy available with the writ applicant. Mr. Buch is hinting towards the remedy before the Tribunal. It is too late in the day for Mr. Buch to canvass this contention because this petition was filed in the year 2003. Almost 13 years have lapsed. It would not be proper for this Court to ask a helpless lady to once again go to the Tribunal and initiate a fresh litigation. In such circumstances, the contention as regards the alternative remedy has not impressed me. Mr. Buch has also placed reliance on the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1. 48. There are two things which I need to take care. First, the consequential benefits of the order which will have to be paid by the management and secondly, absorbing the writ applicant in any other grant-in-aid institute or any government institute. 49. 48. There are two things which I need to take care. First, the consequential benefits of the order which will have to be paid by the management and secondly, absorbing the writ applicant in any other grant-in-aid institute or any government institute. 49. So far as the consequential benefits are concerned, the respondent No.1-Trust shall pay to the writ applicant the requisite amount within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the order. 50. So far as the absorption part is concerned, I would request the State Government to consider the case sympathetically and see to it that the writ applicant, being a helpless lady, is absorbed in any other government institute or any grant-in-aid institute. 51. Let this exercise be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the order subject to the rules and regulations. 52. With the above, this writ application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. A copy of this order be provided to Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, the learned AGP, for its onward communication. Direct service is permitted.