APHC010600442014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 1910 OF 2014 Between: T.Krishna Kumari …Petitioner AND The Commissioner for Cooperation And Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad And three others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.V.Shivaji Counsel for the Respondents: Ld. Govt. Pleader for Cooperation For Respondents 1 to 3 The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner is challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing a direction for reinstating the 4th respondent into service of the 3rd respondent-society despite his resignation and further conferring the benefit of continuity of service effective from the date of his initial appointment vide proceedings dated 03.05.2013. 2. The petitioner was an Accountant with the third respondent for over 27 years and claims to be a senior accountant working in the -2- W.P. No.1910 of 2014 category of Clerk-cum-Cashier in the third respondent-society. The petitioner claims that she was eligible for promotion as a Secretary/ Managing Director of the 3rd respondent-society. While the things stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings reinstating the 4th respondent into service of the 3rd respondent despite the submission of resignation by the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has used his political clout and was issued the reinstatement proceedings, though he had submitted his resignation long back. It is submitted that on account of reinstating the 4th respondent into service, the chances of promotion for the petitioner have been marred. 3. No counters are filed in the writ petition. However, the learned standing counsel submitted that the 2nd respondent considered the withdrawal of resignation of the 4th respondent and accordingly, passed the necessary proceedings directing the reinstatement of the 4th respondent. On account of the decision to accept the withdrawal of resignation by the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent was reinstated into service and that he is still continuing in service as on date. 4. It is the prerogative of the employer to accept the letter of withdrawal of resignation at any point of time before the same is accepted and the employee is discharged. In the present case, -3- W.P. No.1910 of 2014 the withdrawal of resignation was accepted within the time and the 4th respondent was reinstated. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot challenge the administrative act on the part of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. It would also the prerogative of the employer to reinstate the employee depending upon the requirement and nature of work of the employer rendered by it. Such administrative actions cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction when there is no violation of fundamental right. 5. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. 6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N BV