- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Special leave is granted. In spite of service of notice the respondent No. 1 does not respond. The respondent Managing Committee is represented and its counsel is heard.
(2.) The appellant, an inter college teacher whose normal age of superannuation would be 60 years gave his option to retire on attaining 58 years of age by communicating his option on 13/02/1982, in terms of the Govt. notification dated 29.8.81. The Management forwarded the option of the appellant to the District Inspector of schools for acceptance, but there was no communication from the respondent No. 1 accepting or rejecting the option. On 20/01/1987, the appellant withdrew his option. The Management forwarded the same recommending acceptance of the subsequent revocation to the respondent no. 1 by letter dated 8/05/1987. The respondent no. 1 wrote to the Management Committee stating that it would not be possible to accept the proposal of the Management Committee as per the rules. The appellant's application under art. 226 of the Constitution has been rejected in limine by the High court. The relevant rule reads thus :- "These rules shall be applicable to the Teachers of those State government Aided Higher secondary Schools which are working under any local body or any non administrative management, within the ambit of Salary Disbursement act, 1971 on 30/06/1978 or thereafter and who will give their option in favour of retirement at the age of 58 years, within six months of the Publication of these rules. An option, once used will be deemed to be final. The date of retirement shall be the end of session".
(3.) We are of the view that the High court should not have rejected the writ application. It has not been disputed anywhere that option stood withdrawn before it was accepted. The provision in the rule "an option once used will be deemed to be final" would not mean that when an offer ismade it is not open to be withdrawn before it is accepted. The respondent No. 1 obviously acted under the wrong notion and the High court did not appreciate this aspect. We would accordingly hold that the appellant was entitled to withdraw the option.;