Delhi Technological Universityv.B S Rawat

Supreme Court Holds Ratification and Employee Conduct Bar Withdrawal of Resignation

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Delhi Technological University v. B.S. Rawat

Citation: 2026 INSC 797

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgment: August 4, 2026

Area of Law: Service Law, Resignation, Ratification, Withdrawal of Resignation

The Judgment in One Line

Ratification of an unauthorized acceptance of resignation relates back to cure the defect, and an employee who has accepted benefits of resignation cannot later withdraw it.

Why This Judgment Matters

This landmark judgment clarifies two critical aspects of service law: the doctrine of ratification and the right to withdraw a tendered resignation. The Court held that ratification by the competent authority of an otherwise unauthorized acceptance of resignation operates retrospectively, validating the act from its inception. More importantly, the Court ruled that an employee who has tendered resignation, requested waiver of notice period, accepted all consequential benefits including last pay and experience certificates, and secured fresh employment on that basis, cannot later impugn the resignation on technical grounds. The principle against approbation and reprobation prevents an employee from "having his cake and eating it too."

Background

The respondent, B.S. Rawat, was appointed as Assistant Registrar (Legal) at Delhi Technological University (DTU) on August 23, 2010. On May 19, 2016, he tendered his resignation to take effect from September 1, 2016. He subsequently requested waiver of the notice period and acceptance with effect from May 31, 2016. The then Vice-Chancellor (holding additional charge) accepted the resignation on May 25, 2016, and the respondent was relieved. He received his no-dues certificate, last pay certificate, and experience certificate.

On September 22, 2016—almost four months later—the respondent sought withdrawal of his resignation, contending that the Board of Management (BOM) was the competent authority and the acting Vice-Chancellor lacked authority. The BOM ratified the acceptance at its 20th meeting on September 26, 2016. The respondent then joined National Institute of Technology, Calicut (NITC) as Deputy Registrar on February 8, 2017.

The High Court of Delhi ordered reinstatement but denied back wages. The University appealed against reinstatement, while the respondent appealed against denial of back wages. In a separate matter, the respondent also challenged his resignation from NITC.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the acceptance of resignation by an officer holding additional charge—who was not the competent authority—stood validated by subsequent ratification by the Board of Management.

2. Whether an employee who has accepted all benefits of resignation and secured fresh employment can later withdraw the resignation on technical grounds.

3. Whether a resignation takes effect on the date of acceptance or only after communication and expiry of the notice period.

4. Whether the refusal to permit withdrawal of resignation by the competent authority was justified.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the University's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. The Court's reasoning was comprehensive and anchored in settled principles:

Ratification Operates Retrospectively: The Court held that ratification, in its ordinary legal signification, denotes confirmation by a person or body possessing requisite authority of an act earlier done without such authority. The doctrine finds its origin in the maxim ratihabito mandato aequiparatur—a subsequent ratification is equivalent to a prior command. Once ratified, the act is treated as valid from its inception (relation-back principle). The BOM's ratification at its meeting on September 26, 2016, cured the defect arising from the acting Vice-Chancellor's lack of authority.

Ratification Cures Defects of Authority: The Court laid down seven principles on ratification, including that only the competent authority can ratify an invalid act, ratification operates retrospectively, express approval is sufficient (no fresh order needed), and ratification cures defects of authority but not acts that are inherently illegal or prohibited by law.

Employee's Conduct Precludes Challenge: The Court held that a resignation becomes a consummated and irrevocable transaction where both sides have treated it as final and altered their positions. The respondent initiated the resignation, requested waiver of notice period, accepted all benefits (no-dues, last pay, experience certificates), and secured fresh employment on that basis. He cannot later impugn the very transaction he brought about. The principle against approbation and reprobation prevents him from "having his cake and eating it too."

Resignation Takes Effect on Acceptance: Under Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, resignation "shall take effect only on the date on which the resignation is accepted by the appointing authority." The Court held that no requirement of communication exists as a condition of efficacy. The notice period regulates the date of actual relieving and does not hold the acceptance itself in abeyance. The respondent's letter of withdrawal on November 28, 2018, was after the resignation had already taken legal effect on November 22, 2018.

Withdrawal Discretion Justified: The Office Memorandum dated February 11, 1988, recognizes withdrawal of accepted resignation before actual relieving as the normal rule but preserves to the competent authority the discretion to refuse such withdrawal with recorded reasons. The respondent's request for withdrawal followed immediately upon his selection on deputation. The competent authority's conclusion that the request was opportunistic was a plausible and rational view. Courts should not substitute their view in the absence of mala fides or perversity.

Key Legal Principles

1. Ratification is equivalent to prior authority — under the maxim ratihabito mandato aequiparatur, a subsequent ratification validates an act from its inception.

2. Ratification operates retrospectively — the relation-back principle means the ratified act is deemed valid from the date of the original, unauthorized act, not merely from the date of ratification.

3. Only the competent authority can ratify — ratification cures defects of authority, but not acts that are inherently illegal or prohibited by law.

4. Resignation becomes irrevocable upon consummation — where both sides treat it as final and alter positions, an employee cannot later impugn the transaction.

5. No approbation and reprobation — an employee who accepts benefits of resignation and secures fresh employment cannot later claim no exit legally occurred.

6. Resignation takes effect on acceptance — under specific statutory provisions, no requirement of communication is needed; notice period regulates relieving, not acceptance.

7. Withdrawal discretion is vested in authority — courts will not substitute their view of sufficiency of reasons in the absence of mala fides or perversity.

Important Precedents

Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, (2006) 6 SCC 589

• Applied the doctrine of ratification; held that subsequent ratification is equivalent to prior authority and cures defects arising from absence of prior authority.

S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379

• Held that ratification validates acts done without authority; express approval of earlier action is sufficient, and no fresh order is necessary.

State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, (1955) 1 SCR 893

• Held that a resignation becomes effective from the date it is accepted, not from the date of communication.

Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, (1978) 2 SCC 301

• Held that a resignation can be withdrawn only before it becomes effective; once accepted and acted upon, it cannot be withdrawn.

North Eastern Railway v. B.R. Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 645

• Held that ratification cures defects of authority; an unauthorized act can be validated by subsequent approval of the competent authority.

Practical Impact

For advocates: This judgment is crucial when advising clients on resignation and withdrawal issues. It establishes that employees cannot challenge resignations on technical grounds after accepting benefits and securing fresh employment. The doctrine of ratification provides a powerful argument for employers to validate otherwise unauthorized acceptances. The principle against approbation and reprobation is now firmly established in service law.

For future litigation: Courts will now apply the doctrine of ratification more rigorously in service matters. Employers can rely on ratification to cure defects in acceptance of resignation. Employees will be estopped from challenging resignations after accepting benefits and securing fresh employment. The judgment also clarifies that the competent authority's discretion to refuse withdrawal is entitled to deference.

May be cited: In any service law dispute involving resignation, withdrawal of resignation, ratification of unauthorized acts, or the principle against approbation and reprobation.

Lawcurb Quick Insight

The Court's reliance on the principle against approbation and reprobation is significant. The respondent's conduct—requesting waiver, accepting benefits, joining another job—estopped him from later challenging the resignation. This prevents "having the cake and eating it too."

Lawcurb Practice Note

When advising clients who have resigned, ensure they understand that once they accept benefits and secure fresh employment, they cannot later withdraw the resignation on technical grounds. Employers should ensure the competent authority ratifies any unauthorized acceptance promptly.

Remember This Ratio

Ratification of unauthorized acceptance of resignation relates back to cure the defect; an employee who accepts benefits cannot later withdraw resignation.

Exam Lens

Q: What is the doctrine of ratification in service law, and how does it operate? A: Ratification is the confirmation by a competent authority of an act earlier done without authority. It operates retrospectively, treating the act as valid from its inception. Under the maxim ratihabito mandato aequiparatur, a subsequent ratification is equivalent to a prior command.

Q: Can an employee withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted and acted upon? A: No. Once a resignation is accepted and acted upon—and the employee accepts benefits, receives certificates, and secures fresh employment—it becomes irrevocable. The principle against approbation and reprobation prevents the employee from later challenging the resignation.

Q: What is the effect of ratification by the competent authority on an otherwise unauthorized acceptance? A: Ratification cures the defect arising from the absence of prior authority. The act is treated as valid from the date of the original, unauthorized act, not merely from the date of ratification.

Final Outcome

• Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024 allowed — the Delhi High Court's reinstatement order is set aside; writ petition dismissed.

• Civil Appeal No. 9309 of 2024 dismissed — respondent not entitled to back wages.

• Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 625-626 of 2021 dismissed — NITC's action in accepting resignation and refusing withdrawal upheld.

• Ratification upheld — BOM's ratification of the acting Vice-Chancellor's acceptance was valid and related back to the original date.

• No approbation and reprobation — respondent cannot claim benefits of resignation and later impugn it on technical grounds.

• No costs — pending applications disposed of.

Lawcurb Verdict

This judgment is a significant clarification of the law on resignation and ratification in service matters. By upholding the doctrine of ratification and the principle against approbation and reprobation, the Court has prevented employees from exploiting technicalities after voluntarily resigning, accepting benefits, and securing fresh employment. The judgment strikes the right balance between procedural compliance and substantive fairness. A timely reminder that service law cannot be used as an instrument of opportunism.

This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.