Constitution of India, Art. 217(1) proviso (a) "resign his office", interpretation-High Court Judge's resignation letter intimating to have effect from a juture date, whether receipt by President, makes resignation fait accompli Revocation of resignation prior to intimated date of effect, validity of- Doctrine of public policy, applicability to judicial decisions.

The second respondent (appellant in CA 2655/77) Shri Satish Chandra wrote to the President of India, on May 7, 1977, intimating his resignation from the office of Judge of the Allahabad High Court, with effect from August 1, 1977. On July 15, 1977, he again wrote to the President, revoking his earlier communication, and commenced deciding matters in Court from July 16, 1977. On August 1, 1977 the first respondent Shri Misra, an advocate of the High Court, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the resignation of Shri Satish Chandra, having been duly communicated to the President of India, in accordance with Article 217(,1) Proviso (a) of the Constitution, was final and irrevocable, and that the continuance of respondent No. 2 as a High Court Judge thereafter, was an usurpation of public office. The High Court allowed the petition holding that Sbri Satish Chandra was not competent to revoke his resignation letter.