Know The Law | Doctrine Of Ratification : Supreme Court Explains Principles

In a judgment clarifying the doctrine of ratification in administrative law, the Supreme Court has held that once the competent authority ratifies an act initially performed without authority, the ratification relates back to the date of the original act, validating it as though prior authority had existed from the outset.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe explained the scope and effect of the doctrine while deciding a dispute over the validity of the acceptance of an employee's resignation by an officer who was not the competent statutory authority.

The Court observed that the central issue was the legal effect of "the ratification, by the competent authority, of an otherwise unauthorised acceptance of resignation."

Explaining the doctrine, the Bench said ratification denotes the confirmation or adoption by a competent authority of an act earlier performed on its behalf without authority or performed irregularly, so that the act is treated as valid from its inception.

The judgment traced the doctrine to the maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur (a subsequent ratification is equivalent to a prior command), as refined by the maxim omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur, which embodies the principle of relation back.

According to the Court, once an act is ratified, "it is deemed valid from the date of the original, unauthorised act, and not merely from the date of ratification."

After examining earlier decisions, the Court distilled six legal principles governing ratification:

"(i) Ratification means making a previously invalid act valid. It is the subsequent approval of an act that was initially done without authority.

(ii) A subsequent ratification is equivalent to prior authority. Once the competent authority ratifies an act, the law treats it as though the authority had existed from the beginning. This is based on the maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur.

(iii) Ratification operates retrospectively. It relates back to the date on which the original act was performed and cures the defect arising from the absence of prior authority.

(iv) Only the competent authority can ratify an invalid act. The authority which is legally empowered to perform the act must itself approve or adopt the earlier unauthorised action.

(v) Express approval of the earlier action is sufficient. It is not necessary for the competent authority to pass a fresh order. A resolution or decision approving the earlier unauthorised act amounts to valid ratification.

(vi) Ratification cures defects of authority, not acts that are inherently illegal. The doctrine applies where the act could have been validly performed by the competent authority in the first place. It cannot validate an act that is void because it is prohibited by law or beyond the power of the authority."

Applying these principles, the Court held that although the resignation of a Delhi Technological University employee had initially been accepted by an officer holding only additional charge as Vice-Chancellor, the defect stood cured when the University's Board of Management, the competent authority under the statute, subsequently ratified the acceptance.

The Court ruled that the ratification related back to the original date of acceptance, meaning that by the time the employee attempted to withdraw his resignation four months later, "there was, in point of law, no resignation left in existence which he could have withdrawn."

The Bench also emphasised that, independent of ratification, an employee who has treated a resignation as final and accepted all consequential benefits cannot subsequently challenge it on a technical ground relating to the authority that accepted it.

Observing that the employee had sought waiver of the notice period, accepted his relieving order, obtained service certificates and secured another appointment using those documents, the Court held that he could not later question the validity of the resignation after having benefited from it.

Accordingly, the Court allowed Delhi Technological University's appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court's direction ordering the employee's reinstatement.

Also from the judgment -Employee Who Accepts Benefits Of Resignation Cannot Later Revoke It Claiming Its Acceptance Was Invalid : Supreme Court

Headnote

Service Law – Resignation – Withdrawal of Resignation – Unauthorised Acceptance and Subsequent Ratification – Relation-back Doctrine – Principle against Approbation and Reprobation - Effect of Ratification by Competent Authority - An acceptance of resignation originally made by an officer lacking competence or holding merely additional charge stands validated upon subsequent ratification by the competent authority - Under the maxim omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur, a valid ratification operates retrospectively, relating back to the date of the original unauthorized acceptance and curing the defect of lack of prior authority - Once an unauthorized acceptance is ratified by the competent authority, the acceptance relates back to the original date of relieving - there remains no resignation in existence in the eyes of the law that an employee can subsequently withdraw - An employee who requests a waiver of notice period, accepts full settlement (no-dues certificate, last pay certificate, experience certificate), and utilizes the same to secure employment elsewhere is precluded from challenging the resignation's acceptance on technical grounds or alleging lack of authority under the principle against approbation and reprobation. [Para 17 - 25]

Service Law – National Institute of Technology First Statutes, 2009 – Statute 30 – Effectiveness of Resignation – Communication & Notice Period - Effective Date of Resignation: Under the proviso to Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009, a resignation takes legal effect immediately on the date of its acceptance by the appointing authority - Its legal efficacy is neither conditional upon formal communication nor held in abeyance during the serving of the notice period - While Paragraph 3 of Office Memorandum dated 11.02.1988 permits withdrawal of an accepted resignation prior to actual relieving, the competent authority retains the discretion to reject such withdrawal request by recording rational and communicated reasons. [Relied on High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 239; National Institute of Technology & Anr. v. Pannalal Choudhury & Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 669; Municipal Commissioner, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. R.M. Doshi, (2024) 20 SCC 742; Air India Express Ltd. & Ors. v. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, (2019) 17 SCC 129; Paras 27-30]