RAJESWARI DAYAL Vs. CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
LAWS(TRIP)-2021-1-11
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on January 04,2021

Rajeswari Dayal Appellant
VERSUS
Central Agricultural University Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Akil Kureshi, J. - (1.) This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of deceased Dr. M. C. Nandeesha who was the original petitioner. During the pendency of the petition he expired. His widow and son pursue this litigation.
(2.) Brief facts are as under : Petitioner Dr. Nandeesha, at the relevant time, was working as a Professor and Head of Aquaculture Department of the Central Agricultural University. He was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry. According to him, he was being falsely targeted and harassed and on account of which he tendered his resignation from service on 18th September, 2008. This resignation was accepted by the Vice Chancellor of the Agricultural University which was conveyed to the petitioner by the Registrar on 25th September, 2008. On 27th September, 2008 the petitioner made an attempt to withdraw the resignation. On 29th September, 2008 the Registrar of the University conveyed to the petitioner that the competent authority was of the opinion that after acceptance of the resignation there is no provision for its withdrawal.
(3.) The petitioner thereupon filed the petition and prayed for direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to withdraw his resignation. The petitioner had raised two main legal contentions. It was agued on behalf of the petitioner that no notice of statutory period was given while tendering his resignation and that the resignation could have been accepted only by the Board of Management of the University and not the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor not being the competent authority for accepting the resignation, his acceptance was invalid. A reply was filed on behalf of the university in which it was contended that the Vice Chancellor has the power to accept the resignation under Section 11(3) of the Central Agricultural University Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the said Act') which action was also approved by the Board of Management in its meeting dated 5th November, 2008. Aggrieved by the decision of the Vice Chancellor the petitioner had a right to the appeal to the Board of Management. The Board of Management turned down the appeal which decision the petitioner has not challenged.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.