IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10929 of 2010 1. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM BILASH SINGH R/O VILL.- MIRZANAGAR, P.S. MAHUA, DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI 5. DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN NAMELY DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI ----------- 2 11/03/2011 Petitioner is aggrieved because of rejection of the prayer of the petitioner to accept his joining on the post of Assistant teacher. The said decision is annexure-12 and the decision/resolution no. 3 relates to the petitioner. There is a long story behind the present litigation but not every detail need to be taken into consideration. Suffice it to say that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide memo no. 2022 dated 16.06.2000 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali as the petitioner was successful in the examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service - 2 - Commission. In the meantime, settlement of a bus-stand was also made in favour of the petitioner. In the wisdom of the petitioner running of the bus-stand was more lucrative than working as an Assistant teacher. He voluntarily, therefore, decided to resign from the post and the resignation was accepted on 6.7.2002. But as luck would have had, certain other interested persons in the settlement of the bus-stand carried a litigation which was initially decided in favour of the petitioner, upto the Division Bench and the Division Bench in its wisdom interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge. Since the petitioner lost the settlement of the bus stand, he approached the respondents to reinstate him in service and allow him to join. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that tendering of resignation by the petitioner was in the set of facts and circumstances which has also been noticed in the order of the learned Single Judge and since the source of livelihood disappeared because of the order of the Division Bench, he would be left in the lurch, a very rationale and logical submission but whether it - 3 - stands the scrutiny of law is another issue. Perusal of the letter of resignation which has been annexed as annexure-3 would show that the resignation was tendered by the petitioner voluntarily on 5.7.2002 with a clear assertion that no claim for re- employment will be made. Unilateral tendering of resignation was accepted the very next day and duly notified. If that was the circumstance and that was the conduct of the petitioner, then how he can acquire a right to come back on the post and under what Service Rules is not being spelt out in so many words. Law is well settled that when a voluntary letter of resignation is offered and if it stands withdrawn before the employer takes cognizance of the same, then he has a case but since in the present case the tendering of resignation without any compulsion was accepted and acted upon way back on 6.7.2002, any claim made on the respondents now to permit him to rejoin the post is a misplaced kind of prayer, not worthy of consideration. The respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. - 4 - This writ application being devoid of merit is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)