TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 912
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IX CIVIL APPEAL ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI 2. Delhi Technological University (DTU), formerly known as Delhi College of Engineering was given the status of a University vide Delhi Technological University Act, 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Government of Delhi after obtaining prior approval of the Chancellor (Lieutenant Governor of Delhi) in exercise of powers under Section 30 read with Section 31(1) of the 2009 Act, notified Statutes of Delhi Technological University (First) Statutes, 2009. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Vice-Chancellor of DTU offered the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal) to the respondent. On 23.08.2010, the respondent joined DTU as the Assistant Registrar (Legal). By the Delhi Technological University (Amendment) Act, 2012, Section 22 of the 2009 Act was amended creating the post of a Chairperson to be nominated by the Chancellor to head the Board of Management (BOM), and Section 53 was inserted empowering the Chancellor to issue such directions as may be necessary or expedient in the interest of administration. Section 23(2)(ix) vests in the BOM the power to appoint persons to teaching, administrative and ministeria....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9309 of 2024. CIVIL APPEAL ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA 8. Consequent upon his resignation from DTU, the respondent joined National Institute of Technology, Calicut ('NITC') as Deputy Registrar on 08.02.2017. On 08.11.2018, he tendered a conditional letter of resignation seeking leave to withdraw the same before the date of relieving. The resignation was returned as impermissible under Statute 30 of the First Statutes of the National Institute of Technology, 2009 (NIT First Statutes, 2009). The respondent, thereafter, submitted an unconditional letter of resignation, while reiterating his request for leave to withdraw the resignation before relieving. 9. The competent authority accepted the resignation on 22.11.2018. The acceptance of resignation was communicated on 04.12.2018, to the respondent, and he was permitted to be relieved on 11.01.2019 i.e. upon completion of the notice period. On 28.11.2018, upon selection on deputation with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation, the respondent sought to withdraw his resignation. The request, reiterated on 07.12.2018, was rejected by a reasoned order dated 07.01.2019 and the respondent was relieved on 11.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e competent authority and the question of its ratification by the BOM does not arise. It is contended that there is no document on record to show that resignation has ever been accepted. It is, therefore, urged that the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench have rightly directed reinstatement of the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent is entitled to back wages. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court [Bhartiben Chandrakantbhai Thakor v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 208.]. 13. The respondent in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 625-626 of 2021 has submitted that NITC erred in relieving him before the notice period. It is further submitted that the resignation of the respondent was not accepted by the competent authority namely, the Board of Governance and the action which is without jurisdiction, cannot be ratified by the Board of Governance. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment be set aside. 14. Learned counsel for NITC, submitted that proviso to Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009, provide that resignation is effective on the date of acceptance and the request for withdrawal of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y another". The doctrine finds its origin in the maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur, a subsequent ratification is equivalent to a prior command, refined further by the maxim omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur, which imports the principle of relationback: a ratified act is deemed valid from the date of the original, unauthorised act, and not merely from the date of ratification. 19. This Court has, on more than one occasion, applied the doctrine in the above sense [Sri Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 543; High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 239; Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil S/o Pundikarao Pathak, (2006) 5 SCC 96, National Institute of Technology & Anr. v. Pannalal Choudhury & Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 669 and Municipal Commissioner, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (supra)]. From these decisions, following legal principles about doctrine of ratification can be culled out: (i) Ratification means making a previously invalid act valid. It is the subsequent approval of an act that was initially done without authority. (ii) A subsequent ratification is equivalent to pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....formal acceptance was still awaited. 22. Tested on the touch stone of this principle, the fault in this matter lies squarely at the respondent's own door, and not merely in the accepting officer's want of authority. It was the respondent who initiated the process by tendering resignation and then went further, of his own volition, to request waiver of the notice period and acceptance with effect from an advanced date 31.05.2016 rather than the original date of 31.08.2016, he himself had proposed. The university acted on that very request: it relieved him with effect from the date he requested, accepted his no-dues certificate, and issued him his last pay and experience certificate. Every step that rendered the resignation complete, in fact was taken either at the respondent's own instance or with his express concurrence. The fact that the officer who signed the acceptance held only additional charge, and was not the BOM, is a defect in the University's internal administration of which the respondent was not even aware, and did not complain of, until 22.09.2016, nearly four months later. The resignation thus stood consummated by the conduct of the parties, and in particular by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sence of communication of acceptance; (ii) he possessed an unqualified right to withdraw it before being relieved; (iii) the refusal to permit withdrawal was arbitrary; and (iv) the acceptance, being conditioned upon a notice period, was merely prospective; therefore the order dated 07.01.2019 and the consequent denial of reinstatement were, for aforesaid grounds, unsustainable. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, we find no fault with the impugned judgment and no merit in the appeal, for the following reasons. Re: Effectiveness of Resignation 27. The proviso to Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009, is explicit that resignation "shall take effect only on the date on which the resignation is accepted by the appointing authority". It imposes neither any requirement of communication as a condition of efficacy, nor does it make effectiveness of acceptance of resignation contingent upon expiry of the notice period. The respondent's resignation was accepted on 22.11.2018; that is the date on which it became effective in law. The notice period thereafter regulated only the date of his actual relieving, namely 11.01.2019, and did not hold the acceptance itself in abeya....