Why the accepting officer’s authority mattered
DTU’s Board of Management was the competent authority under Section 23(2)(ix) of the university’s Act. The officer initially accepting the resignation held additional charge as Vice-Chancellor and lacked the requisite authority. That defect was real; the Supreme Court did not dismiss it as imaginary. The further questions were what the employee had already requested and accepted, and what legal effect followed when the Board ratified acceptance. (Paragraphs 16–18.)
The employee had already acted on his exit
Rawat sought an earlier leaving date and waiver of notice. DTU relieved him with effect from 31 May 2016 and issued the relevant certificates. He sought withdrawal on 22 September 2016, nearly four months later. He subsequently joined NIT Calicut on 8 February 2017 using the DTU experience certificate. The Court distinguished these facts from withdrawal of a resignation that had not yet taken effect: a person could not take the benefits of the completed exit and later treat it as legally nonexistent. (Paragraphs 20–24.)
Ratification and the separate NIT proceedings
Ratification by the competent Board related acceptance back to the earlier act. The DTU reinstatement direction was therefore set aside. In the connected NIT Calicut matter, the applicable statute made resignation effective on acceptance by the appointing authority. The Court treated the later relieving date as different from the effective acceptance date and upheld rejection of withdrawal on the facts and recorded reasons. These were connected but distinct institutional decisions. (Paragraphs 25–31.)
Why this is not a universal rule against withdrawal
The outcome depends on governing service provisions, the competent authority, the dates and the parties’ conduct. It does not mean every unauthorised acceptance is valid or every resignation becomes irrevocable when submitted. The DTU appeal succeeded; Rawat’s connected appeal and the NIT special leave petitions failed. Readers should compare the service rules and stage at which withdrawal was sought before applying the reasoning elsewhere. (Paragraphs 16–25 and 27–32.)
Subsequent review order — 16 September 2026
B.S. Rawat’s Review Petition (Civil) No. 10505/2026 in Civil Appeal No. 9309/2024 was dismissed on 16 September 2026. The signed order states that the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and no ground for review. This update is limited to that review petition; connected or curative proceedings have not been cleared.
A question this judgment answers
Was the original acceptance by the in-charge Vice-Chancellor authorised?
No. The Court recognised the lack of authority, but held that ratification and the employee’s treatment of the resignation as complete defeated the reinstatement claim. (Paragraphs 16 and 20–25.)
Lawyers and appearances recorded by SCR
The following retains the source’s grouping and designations. It does not establish each lawyer’s role in every connected proceeding.
- Advs. for the Appellant(s):
- Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Uday Singh Ahlawat, Atik Gill, Mohnish Sehrawat, Ankit Roy, Ms. Mrinalini Ramesh.
- Advs. for the Respondent(s):
- Shyam Padman, Sr. Adv., Ankit Roy, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Uday Singh Ahlawat, Mohnish Sehrawat, Atik Gill, Jaimon Andrews, Piyo Harold J, Ms. Ashwathy Shyam, Firdouse C P, Naresh Kumar.
- Petitioner-in-person.
- Caveator-in-person.
Procedural origin recorded by SCR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2022 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 68 of 2022
With
Civil Appeal No. 9309 of 2024 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 625-626 of 2021