Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a School Teacher (Classes XI–XII) in Political Science at U.H.S. Mahisaur, Jandaha, Vaishali, pursuant to the BPSC recruitment process and joined service on 5 February 2024.
Source reference: pp. 2–3; para. 3On 22 February 2024, citing his father’s illness and his own mental stress, he submitted his resignation to the Principal.
Source reference: pp. 3–4; para. 3The competent authority accepted the resignation on 19 March 2024.
Source reference: pp. 10–12; paras. 7–8On 2 May 2024, before being informed of the acceptance, the petitioner sought to withdraw his resignation and requested permission to rejoin service.
Source reference: pp. 4–5; para. 3Issues
Whether acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation was required to be communicated to him for the resignation to become legally effective.
Source reference: pp. 15–17; paras. 12–14Whether the petitioner could validly withdraw his resignation on 2 May 2024 after it had been accepted by the competent authority on 19 March 2024.
Source reference: pp. 15–17; paras. 12–14Whether the petitioner was entitled to rejoin service and obtain the reliefs sought in the writ petition.
Source reference: p. 18; paras. 15–16Law Applied
The Court applied Rule 10 of the Bihar State School Teacher (Appointment, Transfer, Disciplinary Proceedings and Service Conditions) Rules, 2023, under which the petitioner remained on probation during the initial two years and which contained no requirement that acceptance of resignation be communicated to the teacher.
Source reference: pp. 16–17; para. 13Relying on The North Zone Cultural Centre & Anr. v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, (2003) 5 SCC 455, and Shriram Manohar Bande v. Uktranti Mandal & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 647, the Court held that resignation becomes effective upon acceptance by the competent authority, even without communication, where the applicable rules do not mandate such communication.
Source reference: pp. 12–14; paras. 10–11The Court distinguished S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., 2024 (6) BLJ 57 (SC), where withdrawal was treated as valid in circumstances involving continued service and evidence indicating that the resignation had not attained finality.
Source reference: pp. 7–10, 15–16; paras. 6, 13Reasoning
The Court found that the material chronology was undisputed: resignation on 22 February 2024, acceptance by the competent authority on 19 March 2024, and attempted withdrawal only on 2 May 2024.
Source reference: p. 15; para. 12Since Rule 10 of the 2023 Rules did not require communication of acceptance, the resignation became operative on 19 March 2024 itself. Consequently, the petitioner’s later withdrawal could not undo the already effective resignation.
Source reference: pp. 16–17; paras. 13–14The Court rejected reliance on S.D. Manohara, noting that the factual circumstances there included continued performance of duties and other conduct showing lack of finality, whereas no such circumstance was pleaded or established here.
Source reference: pp. 15–16; para. 13The Court therefore upheld the respondents’ decision notwithstanding the absence of proven personal communication of the acceptance order.
Source reference: p. 17; para. 14Holding
The Court held that, under the applicable 2023 Rules, communication of acceptance of resignation was not a legal prerequisite.
The petitioner’s resignation became effective upon its acceptance on 19 March 2024, before his attempted withdrawal on 2 May 2024; hence, the withdrawal was invalid and he had no right to rejoin service.
Source reference: pp. 16–17; paras. 13–15The writ petition was dismissed, the acceptance order was not interfered with, and any pending application was disposed of.
Source reference: p. 18; paras. 15–17Original Court PDF
Sunil Kumar TiwarivsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
