'Cannot Have His Cake And Eat It Too': Supreme Court Rejects Employee's Bid To Revoke Resignation After Accepting Benefits & Getting New Job

"He cannot have his cake and eat it too, i.e. he cannot claim the benefits of a completed exit from DTU when it suited him to move on, and simultaneously claim that no exit ever legally occurred when it suits him to return." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated August 04, 2026, dismissed an employee's attempt to withdraw his resignation, holding that a resignation becomes "consummated" and irrevocable when the employee has acted upon it by taking benefits and securing new employment.

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe emphasized that an employee "cannot have his cake and eat it too" by benefiting from an exit and then seeking to invalidate it. The Court also affirmed the retrospective effect of ratification by the competent authority.

The case involved B.S. Rawat, an Assistant Registrar (Legal) at Delhi Technological University (DTU). He tendered his resignation, which was accepted by an In-charge Vice-Chancellor who lacked initial competence. Rawat then sought to withdraw his resignation months later after joining the National Institute of Technology, Calicut (NITC). Subsequently, he also attempted to withdraw his resignation from NITC after securing another deputation. The appeals challenged High Court orders on reinstatement and denial of back wages concerning both DTU and NITC.

The primary questions before the Supreme Court were whether the acceptance of resignation by an incompetent authority could be validated by subsequent ratification, and if an employee who had acted upon his resignation could later unilaterally withdraw it. The Court was also called upon to determine the right to withdraw resignation under specific statutory provisions and the discretion of competent authorities to refuse such withdrawal.

Competent Authority for Resignation Acceptance

The Court observed that Section 23(2)(ix) of the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009, vests the power to appoint and equally, to accept resignations from teaching, administrative, and ministerial posts, in the Board of Management (BOM). Therefore, Professor Yogesh Singh, who was holding only additional charge as Vice-Chancellor, was not the initially competent authority to accept Rawat's resignation on 25.05.2016.

Ratification Cures Defects, Operates Retrospectively

The bench delved into the doctrine of ratification, defining it as the confirmation or adoption of an act done without requisite authority, thereby making it valid from inception. Citing the maxim omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur, the Court underscored that a ratified act is deemed valid from the date of the original, unauthorized act, not merely from the date of ratification.

The Court emphasized, "Ratification operates retrospectively. It relates back to the date on which the original act was performed and cures the defect arising from the absence of prior authority."

Scope of Ratification: Validating Authority, Not Illegal Acts

Crucially, the Court clarified that ratification cures defects of authority but cannot validate acts that are inherently illegal or beyond the power of the authority. It applies only where the act could have been validly performed by the competent authority in the first place. In this case, the BOM, being the competent authority, duly ratified the acceptance of resignation on 26.09.2016.

Resignation Irrevocable After Employee's Own Actions

The Supreme Court introduced another principle: a resignation, even if accepted initially by an unauthorized person, can become a "consummated and irrevocable transaction" if both sides act on it as final and alter their positions. The Court referred to Lord Halsbury's words from Reichel v. Bishop of Oxford, highlighting that a resigner who has done all to complete a transaction cannot upset it merely for formal acceptance.

Employee Cannot Approbate And Reprobate

Applying this, the Court found fault squarely with the respondent, B.S. Rawat. He initiated the resignation process, requested waiver of notice, sought an advanced effective date (31.05.2016), and accepted all consequential benefits like no-dues, last pay, and experience certificates from DTU.

The Court unequivocally stated, "He cannot have his cake and eat it too, i.e. he cannot claim the benefits of a completed exit from DTU when it suited him to move on, and simultaneously claim that no exit ever legally occurred when it suits him to return."

Securing New Employment Validates Exit

His conduct in immediately securing gainful employment at NITC on 08.02.2017, using the very experience certificate from DTU, further confirmed his conscious treatment of the resignation as final. The Court concluded that the resignation thus stood consummated by the conduct of the parties, and in particular, by the respondent's own conduct.

Withdrawal Request After Ratification Invalid

The Court held that once the BOM ratified the acceptance of resignation, it related back to 25.05.2016, the date his resignation was accepted by the In-charge Vice-Chancellor. Consequently, when Rawat sought to withdraw his resignation on 22.09.2016, nearly four months after ceasing service and accepting benefits, "there was, in point of law, no resignation left in existence which he could have withdrawn."

Resignation from NITC Effective Upon Acceptance, Not Relieving Date

Turning to the NITC case, the Court observed that the proviso to Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009, explicitly states resignation "shall take effect only on the date on which the resignation is accepted by the appointing authority." This provision imposes neither a requirement of communication for efficacy nor makes effectiveness contingent on the expiry of the notice period. Rawat's resignation was accepted on 22.11.2018, which was the date it became effective in law.

Refusal to Withdraw Justified By Opportunistic Intent

The competent authority accepted Rawat's resignation from NITC on 22.11.2018. His request for withdrawal on 28.11.2018, following selection for deputation with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation, was rejected as "opportunistic" by a reasoned order dated 07.01.2019. The Court found this conclusion plausible and rational, affirming that courts under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot substitute their view for the competent authority's, absent mala fides, perversity, or a demonstrated violation of law.

No Absolute Right to Withdraw Prospective Resignation

The Court reiterated that while a general right to withdraw a prospective resignation exists, it yields wherever special statutory or regulatory provisions govern the subject, such as Statute 30 of NIT First Statutes, 2009, and the Office Memorandum dated 11.02.1988, which governed the NITC matter. Therefore, the refusal to permit withdrawal was justified.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed DTU's appeal, setting aside the Delhi High Court's direction for reinstatement of B.S. Rawat and dismissing his writ petition. Simultaneously, it dismissed Rawat's appeal against DTU regarding back wages and his Special Leave Petition challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment upholding the acceptance of his resignation from NITC. The ruling firmly establishes the principle that an employee cannot renege on a resignation after acting upon its benefits and securing new employment, especially when the initial acceptance is subsequently ratified by the competent authority.

Date of Decision: August 04, 2026