Ratification of Unauthorised Acceptance of Resignation Relates Back and Bars Later Withdrawal
1. Introduction
In Delhi Technological University v. B.S. Rawat, 2026 INSC 797, the Supreme Court of India considered two connected service-law disputes involving the same employee, B.S. Rawat. The central questions were:
- whether an employee can withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted by an officer who lacked authority, but whose act is later ratified by the competent authority; and
- whether a resignation becomes effective on acceptance or only after communication/relieving, where the governing statute provides that resignation takes effect on acceptance.
The first dispute arose from Rawat’s resignation from Delhi Technological University as Assistant Registrar (Legal). His resignation was accepted by an officer holding additional charge of Vice-Chancellor, though the Board of Management was the competent authority. The Board later ratified the acceptance. The second dispute arose after Rawat joined National Institute of Technology, Calicut and again sought to withdraw his resignation after it had been accepted.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Delhi Technological University and dismissed the appeals/SLPs filed by B.S. Rawat. The Court held:
- The Board of Management of DTU was the competent authority to accept Rawat’s resignation.
- The initial acceptance by the officer holding additional charge of Vice-Chancellor was unauthorised, but the defect was cured by subsequent ratification by the Board of Management.
- Ratification relates back to the date of the original act. Therefore, the resignation stood validly accepted from the original acceptance date.
- Rawat, having sought waiver of notice period, accepted relieving, received documents such as no-dues and experience certificates, and later secured other employment, could not approbate and reprobate by treating the resignation as invalid.
- In the NIT Calicut matter, the resignation became effective on the date of acceptance by the appointing authority under Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009.
- Communication of acceptance or actual relieving was not necessary to make the resignation legally effective, where the statute stated that it takes effect upon acceptance.
- The refusal to permit withdrawal was valid because reasons were recorded and the competent authority reasonably found the request opportunistic.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s direction of reinstatement and upheld the Kerala High Court Division Bench’s refusal to reinstate Rawat in NIT Calicut.
3. Analysis
A. Precedents Cited
1. Sri Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 543
This precedent was relied upon for the doctrine of ratification. The Supreme Court used it to support the proposition that an act initially done without authority may become valid if later approved by the competent authority. It helped the Court conclude that the Board of Management’s later approval cured the defect in the Vice-Chancellor’s unauthorised acceptance.
2. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 239
This case was cited as part of the ratification jurisprudence. It reinforced the principle that ratification by the proper authority operates retrospectively and validates an earlier defective act, provided the original act was one that the competent authority could legally have performed.
The Court referred to this case to explain that ratification is not a mere prospective approval. Once the competent authority adopts the earlier act, the legal defect of lack of authority is cured from the beginning.
4. National Institute of Technology & Anr. v. Pannalal Choudhury & Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 669
This precedent was relevant both on ratification and service-law principles. It supported the view that administrative acts suffering from lack of prior authority may be validated by later ratification where the competent authority had power to do the act in the first place.
5. Municipal Commissioner, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. R.M. Doshi, (2024) 20 SCC 742
This case was relied upon by DTU and also referred to in the Court’s discussion of ratification. It supported the principle that a subsequent approval by the competent authority may cure an authority-related defect, unless the act was inherently illegal or beyond statutory power.
6. Reichel v. Bishop of Oxford, (1889) 14 AC 259
The Court used this House of Lords decision to explain the concept of a resignation becoming “consummated” by the conduct of the parties. Once a person has done all that is necessary from his side to complete the resignation transaction, he cannot later undo it merely because formalities remained.
7. Union of India & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra & Ors., (1978) 2 SCC 301
This decision was cited in connection with the right to withdraw resignation. While it recognises that a prospective resignation may generally be withdrawn before it becomes effective, the Court clarified that the principle is subject to statutory rules and the factual completion of the resignation process.
8. Raj Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 180
This precedent was central to the NIT Calicut issue. The Court relied on it to hold that once the competent authority accepts a resignation, it becomes effective according to the governing rule, and later withdrawal cannot revive it merely because communication or relieving occurs later.
9. Other precedents cited by the parties
The appellant also relied on Director General of Police & Anr. v. M. Jeyanthi, (2021) 14 SCC 677, New Victoria Mills & Ors. v. Shrikant Arya, (2021) 13 SCC 771, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Anil Padegaonkar, (2020) 5 SCC 474, Air India Express Ltd. & Ors. v. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, (2019) 17 SCC 129, and Dr. Suman V. Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan through its Secretary & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 161. These authorities supported the broader proposition that an employee who has acted upon a resignation and accepted its consequences cannot later rely on technical objections to undo it.
Rawat relied on Bhartiben Chandrakantbhai Thakor v. State Of Gujarat & Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 208, but the Supreme Court did not find it sufficient to alter the result, given the facts of ratification, conduct, and the applicable statutory provisions.
B. Legal Reasoning
Doctrine of Ratification
The Court explained ratification through two Latin maxims:
- ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur — subsequent ratification is equivalent to prior authority;
- omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur — ratification relates back to the original act.
Applying these principles, the Court held that although the officer holding additional charge of Vice-Chancellor was not the competent authority, the Board of Management’s later ratification validated the acceptance of resignation from the original date.
Limits of Ratification
The Court clarified that ratification can cure only defects of authority. It cannot validate an act that is inherently illegal, prohibited by law, or beyond the power of the competent authority. Since the Board of Management itself could have accepted the resignation, its later ratification was valid.
Conduct of the Employee
The Court strongly relied on Rawat’s conduct. He had:
- voluntarily tendered resignation;
- sought waiver of the notice period;
- accepted relieving from DTU;
- received no-dues, last pay and experience certificates; and
- used the experience certificate to obtain another appointment.
On these facts, the Court held that Rawat could not “have his cake and eat it too.” He could not accept the benefits of resignation when convenient and later deny the legal effect of the same resignation.
NIT Calicut: Acceptance versus Communication
In the NIT Calicut dispute, Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009 stated that resignation takes effect on the date of acceptance by the appointing authority. Therefore, the resignation became effective on 22.11.2018, when it was accepted, not on 04.12.2018 when it was communicated, nor on 11.01.2019 when Rawat was relieved.
Withdrawal Before Relieving
The Court accepted that an Office Memorandum dated 11.02.1988 generally permits withdrawal of accepted resignation before actual relieving. However, the competent authority may refuse withdrawal by recording reasons. Here, the authority found that Rawat did not genuinely wish to continue but wanted withdrawal only to join another organisation on deputation. The Court held that this was a reasonable ground.
C. Impact of the Judgment
This judgment has significant consequences for public employment and institutional administration:
- Ratification strengthened: A defect arising from acceptance by an unauthorised officer can be cured if the competent authority later ratifies the act.
- Employee conduct matters: Courts will not allow employees to challenge resignation after accepting its benefits and acting upon it.
- Statutory text controls resignation: If a rule says resignation is effective upon acceptance, communication or relieving may not be necessary for legal effectiveness.
- Withdrawal is not absolute: The right to withdraw resignation is subject to statutory provisions and the discretion of the competent authority.
- Judicial review limited: Under Article 226, courts will not replace the authority’s reasoning unless there is illegality, perversity, mala fide, or violation of law.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- Competent Authority: The body or officer legally empowered to take a decision. In DTU, the Board of Management was competent to accept resignation.
- Ratification: Later approval of an earlier unauthorised act. Once ratified, the act is treated as valid from the beginning.
- Relation Back: The legal fiction that ratification operates from the date of the original act, not merely from the later approval date.
- Approbation and Reprobation: A person cannot accept the benefits of a transaction and later deny its validity.
- Notice Period: The period before actual relieving. It may affect the date of physical exit but not necessarily the legal effectiveness of resignation.
- Back Wages: Salary claimed for the period during which an employee was out of service. Since reinstatement was denied, back wages were also denied.
5. Conclusion
The Supreme Court laid down an important service-law principle: an unauthorised acceptance of resignation can be validated by later ratification of the competent authority, and such ratification relates back to the original acceptance. Further, an employee who has acted upon resignation and accepted its benefits cannot later challenge it on technical grounds.
The judgment also clarifies that where statutory rules provide that resignation becomes effective on acceptance, communication or relieving is not decisive. The ruling will guide future disputes on resignation, withdrawal, ratification, and institutional authority in public employment.