Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sthalekar for the respondents.
The prayer made in the writ petition is that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing Annexure-9 to the writ petition; whereby the resignation of the petitioner has been accepted. The grounds raised are that since the learned District Judge was very much prejudiced against the petitioner, therefore, he did not grant leave to the petitioner which compelled the petitioner to submit her resignation.
Sri Amit Sthalekar contends that the resignation letter is unconditional and there was no protest on behalf of the petitioner for continuing in service or for seeking transfer and as a matter of fact, she voluntarily submitted his resignation. The resignation was, accordingly, accepted by the District Judge.
This writ petition has been filed after almost 4 years of the acceptance of the resignation letter. In this view of the matter, the reasons given in the writ petition are not sufficient for the purpose of entertaining the writ petition. Apart from this, the resignation having been accepted, has attained finality. The law relating to resignations and their acceptance is well settled. There was no challenge to the acceptance by the employer for 4 years and consequently the jural relationship came to an end upon acceptance. Reference may be had to the decision in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs. Phoolpati, AIR 2005 SC 1918 The resignation if was under desperation the same should have been challenged within time and that too if the grounds were available as referred to by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Prabha Atri Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 1 SCC 701.
No case for interference is made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.1.2010 Irshad