JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, allowing the respondent’s writ petition.
2. The respondent (petitioner in the writ petition), was employed as Engineering Assistant, in the All India Radio, at Jodhpur. He applied for permission to take up an employment in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and for the retention of his lien for two years. Simultaneously tendering his resignation, which had to be construed in the light of his prayer for retention of lien for two years. By letter dated 5-6-1982, he was relieved from his duty to take up the job in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. Thereafter, by letter dated 30-7-1982 the respondent requested that he be permitted to return to the parent Department, on account of certain personal circumstances. However, the parent Department (appellants) took the stand that he had already resigned and his resignation had been accepted and therefore, he could not be permitted to revert to the parent Department. The respondent that filed the writ-petition, challenging the stand taken by the appellants. That petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge, taking the view that the respondent had withdrawn his resignation before it had become effective since it was to be effective only on expiry of the period of two years during which his lien had been returned. Hence this appeal by the Employer.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that there was an interpolation in the respondent’s letter dated 5-6-1982 at the end, by which the prayer for returning the lien for two years had been added and without the same it was unconditional resignation, required to be accepted forthwith. He argues that the resignation having been accepted accordingly, there was no occasion to permit its withdrawal. Learned Counsel wants to rely on a document produced for the first time in this appeal in support of this contention. We have no doubt that this appeal has to be decided on the basis of material which was produced by both the parties in the writ petition, before the learned Single Judge. The proceedings of the writ petition show that ample opportunity was given to the present, appellants also to produce all material, on which they rely, and it was only thereafter that the writ petition was decided, taking the above view. There is thus, no ground to permit production of any additional material by the appellants in this appeal.
4. On the basis of the material present before the learned Single Judge, the view taken by the learned Single Judge, does not suffer from any infirmity, to permit interference in this appeal.
5. Read as a whole, the respondent’s letter dated 5-6-1982 was a request to permit him to go on deputation to the State Electricity Board, for a period of two years, retaining his lien for that period and for resignation, obviously at the end of that period. In that view of the matter it is obvious that withdrawal of the resignation, soon thereafter by the letter dated 30-7-1982 was permissible which is the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge.
6. The appeal is, therefore dismissed. No costs.