WA 302/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U. BHUYAN (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant University against order of lear ned Single Judge directing the appellant to allow the respondent-writ petitioner to continue in service till the Executive Council of the appellant takes a deci sion on the joining letter submitted by the writ petitioner. The respondent- writ petitioner was serving the appellant University as Registra r on contract basis. His term was to end in May, 2014, but he submitted a letter of resignation. The letter of resignation was to be considered by the Executive Council but the said Council did not accept the same. The writ petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction for acceptance of his resignation. However, l ater he withdrew the resignation and submitted a joining report. The writ petiti on earlier filed was got disposed of on withdrawal and a fresh writ petition was filed seeking a direction for acceptance of his joining report. Learned Single Judge held that since resignation letter of the writ petitioner h ad not been accepted the writ petitioner was entitled to join service in which h e was working, subject to any further decision which may be taken by the Executi ve Council. The operative part of the direction is as under : In view of the above, I propose to dispose of this writ petition at the motion stage taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also the a foresaid admitted position. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the writ petitioner whose resignation letter is yet to be accep ted and who has already submitted joining letter, shall be allowed to continue i n service in the same post till a decision is taken by the Executive Council of the University. We have heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It has not been disputed that resignation letter of the writ petitioner had not been accepted by the Executive Council. Once it is so, the direction issued by t he learned Single Judge cannot be held to be erroneous. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petitioner had committ ed misconduct by not joining the University. If that be so, this may be a ground to take appropriate action in accordance with law but this cannot be a ground t o set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge to allow the writ pe titioner to join his post, pending decision being taken by the Executive Council . Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the second writ petition w as barred by estoppel as the first writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with out permission to file a fresh writ petition. Reliance has been placed on the ju dgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Trans port Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and others, reported in (1987)1 SCC 5. We are unable to accept this submission. The cause of action in the earlier writ petition was non-acceptance of letter of resignation while the cause of action in the second writ petition was not allowing the writ petitioner to join service , after the letter of resignation was withdrawn. Both causes of actions being di fferent, there was no bar to the maintainability of the second writ petition. Th e judgment relied upon is thus, distinguishable. In view of the above, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.