MTHIRUVENGADAM Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has made an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for the issue of a proper direction, order or writ to the respondents declaring that his appointment by respondent 2 to the post of Electrical Supervisor in the Department of Power Engineering of respondent 1 never ceased, that he is still an occupant of the post entitled to hold and function in the same without any obstruction from the respondents, and requiring respondents 2 and 3 to restore and admit him to the post and let him work therein without any let or hindrance. Respondent 1 is the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, respondent 2 the Council of the Indian Institute of Science, respondent 3 the Director and respondent 4 the Registrar of that Institute.

(2.) The facts relevant to this case are practically undisputed and are set out in para 8 of the petition. On 7-5-1953, it appears that the then Director in charge while checking a statement presented by the petitioner called him a. liar and charged him with incompetence. The petitioner took exception to his conduct and wrote a letter dated 11-5-1953 addressed to the Director. Therein he tendered his resignation. On second thought he wrote another letter on 17-6-1953 to the Registrar by which he purported to withdraw his offer to resign. The Institute authorities however refused to allow him to withdraw his resignation and. treated his employment as terminated at the end of six months from the date of the letter of resignation.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. H. S. Raja Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the letter of resignation required acceptance by the Director, and that till it was so accepted it could not have any legal effect. To appreciate this contention it is necessary to refer to the circumstances under which the petitioner was appointed. By a resolution of the Council of the Institute he was-appointed on probation for one year and joined duty on 2-5-1949. The probation period was extended by one more year and thereafter by a resolution passed on 6-10-1952 the petitioner was confirmed in his appointment as Electrical Supervisor with effect from 2-5-1950. He was to hold the appointment till the age of 60. After the passing of this resolution the Registrar sent a draft of his service agreement and asked the petitioner to sign it. One of the clauses of that agreement provided "that the employee may likewise terminate the contract of service by giving the Director as the Chief Executive six months' notice in writing. of his intention of doing so". It is common ground that under the original terms of the employment itself the services of the employee were liable to be terminated by the Council either on medical grounds with three months' notice or on grounds of retrenchment or economy with six months' notice as part of the conditions of the service.