Introduction
Can an employee who has resigned, accepted the consequences of that resignation and used those consequences to move on to a new job later turn around and say that the resignation was never validly accepted? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Technological University v. B.S. Rawat (Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024, 2026 INSC 797 (SC)) answered exactly this question in the negative. The judgment, penned by Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice P.S. Narsimha, is significant because it provides two distinct methods that can be used to overturn such an attack: ratification by the competent authority and the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.
Facts of the Matter
B.S. Rawat was working at Delhi Technological University (DTU). He resigned on 19 May 2016 and asked to be granted a waiver of the notice period. The resignation was accepted on 25 May 2016 by a Professor who was holding additional charge as Vice-Chancellor, and he was relieved on 31 May 2016. DTU then issued him a no-dues certificate, a last-pay certificate and an experience certificate, all of which he received and utilised.
Later, Rawat wanted to rescind his resignation, saying that the acceptance was invalid as it was not approved by the competent authority, the Board of Management (BOM). The BOM then accepted the same on 26 September 2016 and, by an order dated 3 November, 2016, rejected his withdrawal request. The Delhi High Court had granted relief, but the Supreme Court took a different view.
Issues
The Supreme Court answered two questions:
- Whether the earlier acceptance of resignation could be validly ratified from later approval by the BOM.
- Whether Rawat’s own actions of accepting the resignation documents and accepting new employment prevented him from contesting the resignation later.
Ratification
The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of ratification, which means subsequent approval of an act that was originally done without authority. Where legally permissible, such ratification operates retrospectively, thereby validating the earlier act from the date it was originally performed. The Court further clarified that ratification must be undertaken by the competent authority and doesn’t necessarily require the issuance of a fresh substantive order; an express resolution may be sufficient. However, ratification can cure a defect arising from a lack of authority only where it is legally permissible. It can’t validate an inherently illegal or void act.
The Court applied this principle and found that the BOM’s resolution approving the foregoing acceptance restores authority and retrospectively validates the resignation acceptance.
Approbation and Reprobation
Apart from ratification, the Court held that even if they had disregarded the resignation, Rawat would have had no grounds to challenge the act, as he had been acting in an unethical manner. He had requested a waiver of notice period, accepted the relieving order, got the certificates from DTU and got a fresh appointment at the NIT, Calicut, based on the experience certificate. He had taken advantage of the resignation, and he acted on it; and in so doing, when it was to his advantage, he could not deny its effect.
This is the doctrine of approbation and reprobation, that is, a man cannot accept and reject the same transaction; or, in simpler terms, he can’t “have his cake and eat it too.” The Court saw this as a different rule from ratification, based on fair dealing and consistency of behaviour.
Why the Judgment Matters
The judgment is significant in that it clearly differentiates between a failure in the authority’s procedure in accepting a resignation, which can be cured by a ratification, and a later claim by an employee that his or her own behaviour was inconsistent may be sufficient to preclude the challenge.
It also clarifies that an irrevocable resignation is not necessarily granted when someone resigns. The result is still subject to the relevant service rules, the nature of the competent authority and the surrounding facts. What was important in this instance was that Rawat had already taken the resignation for granted and reaped the rewards.
AMLEGALS Remarks
The case of Delhi Technological University v. B.S. Rawat provides valuable insights into service law, particularly concerning the principles of formalism and fairness. The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter established that a defect in the authority accepting a resignation may be cured by subsequent ratification, and that an employee who has already accepted and acted upon the consequences of resignation may not later be permitted to dispute it. This ruling underscores the significant legal implications of a resignation, emphasising that it is not merely a document but a legal action that can lead to definitive outcomes once both parties have acknowledged its finality. The case therefore reinforces both procedural compliance and consistency of conduct in employment disputes.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com or Khilansha.mukhija@amlegals.com