Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 04 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: appellant Delhi Technological University (DTU) vs. respondent B.S. Rawat; connected appeals also involve National Institute of Technology Calicut (NITC) and Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 625‑626 of 2021.
  • Background (DTU): DTU, created under the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009, appointed B.S. Rawat as Assistant Registrar (Legal) on 23‑08‑2010. On 19‑05‑2016 Rawat tendered resignation effective 01‑09‑2016, sought waiver of notice, and requested earlier effect from 31‑05‑2016. The acting Vice‑Chancellor (additional charge) accepted resignation on 25‑05‑2016, relieving Rawat on 31‑05‑2016 and issuing no‑dues, last‑pay and experience certificates.
  • On 22‑09‑2016 Rawat sought withdrawal of resignation, claiming lack of acceptance by the Board of Management (BOM). The 20th BOM meeting (26‑09‑2016) ratified the acceptance; the BOM order dated 03‑11‑2016 rejected the withdrawal request.
  • Rawat filed W.P.(C) No. 2611 of 2019; Single Judge allowed it on 15‑12‑2021, quashing the DTU orders and directing reinstatement with full back wages @ 9% p.a. The Delhi High Court Division Bench (08‑08‑2022) affirmed reinstatement but denied back wages, citing Rawat’s gainful employment during the interregnum.
  • DTU appealed (C.A. No. 9308 of 2024) against reinstatement; Rawat appealed (C.A. No. 9309 of 2024) against denial of back wages.
  • Background (NITC): After leaving DTU, Rawraw joined NIT Calicut as Deputy Registrar on 08‑02‑2017. He tendered a conditional resignation on 08‑11‑2018, which was returned as impermissible under Statute 30 of NIT First Statutes, 2009. He then submitted an unconditional resignation; the competent authority accepted it on 22‑11‑2018, communicated acceptance on 04‑12‑2018, and relieved him on 11‑01‑2019 after notice period.
  • Rawat sought withdrawal on 28‑11‑2018 (after being selected for deputation to East Delhi Municipal Corporation); the request was rejected by order dated 07‑01‑2019. He filed a writ petition; Single Judge partly allowed it, directing reinstatement with notional continuity but no back wages. NITC appealed (W.A. No. 809 of 2020) and Rawat appealed (W.A. No. 816 of 2020) for back wages. The Kerala High Court Division Bench (01‑12‑2020) set aside reinstatement and dismissed Rawat’s back‑wage claim. Rawat subsequently filed SLP (C) Nos. 625‑626 of 2021.

Legal Submissions

  • DTU counsel argued that the Chancellor (as per Section 30 & 31 of the 2009 Act) appointed the Vice‑Chancellor, and that the resignation was validly accepted by the acting Vice‑Chancellor and ratified by the BOM; therefore reinstatement should be set aside and back wages denied.
  • Rawat contended that the resignation was never approved by the competent authority, that no document showed acceptance, and that he was entitled to reinstatement and back wages.
  • NITC counsel relied on Statute 30’s proviso that resignation takes effect on the date of acceptance, and that the competent authority’s discretion to refuse withdrawal was properly exercised.

Points for Determination

1. Whether acceptance of resignation by an officer holding only additional charge of Vice‑Chancellor, without authority under Section 23(2)(ix), becomes valid through subsequent BOM ratification.

2. Whether the Kerala High Court was justified in upholding the acceptance of resignation and rejecting the withdrawal request.

Analysis – DTU Appeal

  • Section 23(2)(ix) vests in the BOM the power to appoint and, by implication, to accept resignations for teaching, administrative and ministerial posts. The acting Vice‑Chancellor lacked such authority; therefore his acceptance was initially unauthorised.
  • The doctrine of ratification: a subsequent approval by the competent authority (the BOM) makes the earlier unauthorised act valid retroactively, provided the authority itself has the power to ratify. The Court reiterated established principles: ratification operates retrospectively, equates to prior authority, and requires the competent authority’s approval.
  • However, the Court also noted that once both parties have acted on the resignation (Rawat received certificates, was relieved, and secured new employment), the resignation is consummated. The respondent cannot later claim the act was void on a technical ground of unauthorised acceptance.
  • Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the BOM’s ratification on 26‑09‑2016 rendered the acceptance effective from 25‑05‑2016, leaving no surviving resignation for Rawat to withdraw on 22‑09‑2016. The High Court’s order directing reinstatement was therefore set aside, while the denial of back wages remained justified.

Analysis – NITC Appeal

  • Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009 expressly states that resignation takes effect on the date of acceptance by the appointing authority; communication of acceptance is not a condition, nor is the expiry of the notice period.
  • Acceptance on 22‑11‑2018 made the resignation effective immediately; the notice period only determined the actual relieving date (11‑01‑2019).
  • The Office Memorandum dated 11‑02‑1988 permits the competent authority to refuse withdrawal of an accepted resignation, provided reasons are recorded. The authority exercised this discretion, finding Rawat’s request opportunistic.
  • The Court affirmed that the Division Bench correctly applied the statutory provisions and that no infirmity existed in the order dated 07‑01‑2019. Hence the SLPs were dismissed and no back‑wage claim arose.

Final Outcome

  • Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024 (DTU v. B.S. Rawat): Allowed. The High Court of Delhi judgment directing reinstatement is set aside; W.P.(C) No. 2611 of 2019 is dismissed.
  • Civil Appeal No. 9309 of 2024 (B.S. Rawat v. DTU): Dismissed.
  • Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 625‑626 of 2021 (B.S. Rawat v. NIT Calicut): Dismissed.
  • No order as to costs. Any pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Topics: Legal Resignation; University Governance