APHC010550452024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 28897/2024 Between: 1. L JUNITHA NATHAN, W/O. R. SRINIVASAN, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 24-39, LAKSHMINAGAR COLONY CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a writ. order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the Petitioner to the post of Field Assistant by duly considering the Petitioners representation dated 30-05-2012 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioners representation dated 30- 05-2012 within a stipulated time frame in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 2 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.28897 of 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the Respondents to dispose of the representation dated 03.10.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AISHWARYA NAGULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y N VIVEKANANDA This Court made the following: 3 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.28897 of 2024 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam) The petitioner is a Field Assistant in the Judicial Department. She tendered her resignation on 11.11.2011 on the ground that her husband is a heart patient and suffering from other ailments. With no elders available to care for her husband and children, she chose to resign, and her resignation was accepted on 24.01.2012. 2. Thereafter, on 30.05.2012, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent seeking restoration of her services. Since the representation was not acted upon, the present writ petition has been filed to consider her candidature for the post of Field Assistant by duly considering her representation dated 30.05.2012. 3. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argues that the memo dated 21.12.2011 clearly shows that the petitioner was given ample opportunity before her resignation was accepted. The 2nd respondent issued rejection order in Dis. No.5775 dated 05.07.2012. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition without explaining the decade-long delay and without questioning the orders dated 05.07.2012, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.28897 of 2024 4. Now, the issue that emerges for determination is, whether it is open for the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, when once her application for resignation was accepted? 5. The law in this regard is laid down in Chand Mal Chayal Vs. State of Rajastan1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “By now, it is a well-settled principle of law that an incumbent is entitled to withdraw his resignation before acceptance. Once his resignation is accepted there is no jural relationship between the employee and employer and employee cannot claim for withdrawal of the resignation or reinstatement in the post” (Emphasis supplied) 6. The jural relationship between the employer and the employee ends once the resignation is accepted. Therefore, any representation made by the petitioner for reinstatement is null under the law. Furthermore, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 05.07.2012 rejecting the petitioner's case. The petitioner, without questioning the aforementioned proceeding, filed the writ petition seeking restoration of her services after more than a decade. 7. The petitioner cannot waive her rights by not approaching the Court, even if her representation is pending. The law generally favors those who are vigilant in pursuing their rights, and prolonged 1 (2006) 10 SCC 258 5 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.28897 of 2024 delay in seeking legal recourse can be detrimental to a case, even if a representation is pending. The petitioner is expected to act reasonably and approach the Court within a suitable timeframe. Since the 2nd respondent has already accepted the resignation, the impugned order warrants no interference and the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 1st July, 2025 cbs 6 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.28897 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Writ Petition No.28897 of 2024 1st July, 2025 cbs