have to be examined with reference to his conditions of service.” Now it is clear from the rule itself, that a condition of Shri Kapur's service was that the Government and the Government servant could dispense with the period of notice if it was mutually agreed upon to do that. Rule 5(b) makes that abundantly clear. The learned Judge for some reason completely overlooked this aspect. 435. Neither the Government nor the Government servant is in a worse position than an ordinary master or servant on a matter governed by contract. In fact, Article 310 makes it clear that in such a case, the tenure of office of a Central Government servant is “during the pleasure of the President”. In the instant case the President's pleasure was contained in the notification dated 25-1-1971 showing that the President had accepted the resignation of Shri Kapur with effect from the forenoon of 14-1-1971. And, this is what Shri Kapur himself wanted. Hence, there is no difficulty at all in accepting the correctness of a resignation effective from the date which both parties to the contract, on patent facts had agreed to. No rights of an innocent 3rd party where either involved or affected by such an acceptance of the resignation from the date immediately after the date on which Shri Kapur had tendered his resignation. That as already pointed out was also the date after which he had ceased to work or draw his salary. It is inconceivable that the law should thrust the status of a Government servant upon one who does not want it, particularly when the Government also does not, in public interest, refuse to relieve him by making him stick to any terms to the contrary in his contract. Our law, on this point, is not so monstrous. The position accepted by the learned Judge appears to me to be quite indefensible. However, there was an amendment also in the law by Section 7 of Act 40 of 1975 adding the following at the end of the Explanation to Section 123 (7) of the Act: “(3) For the purposes of Clause (7), notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the publication in the Official Gazette of the appointment, resignation, termination of service dismissal or removal from service of a person in the service of the Central Government (including a person serving in connection with the administration of a Union territory) or of a State Government shall be conclusive proof— (i) of such appointment, resignation termination of service, dismissal or removal from service, as the case may be, and (ii) where the date of taking effect of such appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service, as the case may be is stated in such publication, also of the fact that such person was appointed with effect from the said date, or in the case of resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service, such person ceased to be in such service with effect from the said date.” 436. I find that this amendment, which was made retrospective, by S. 10 of Act 40 of 1975 makes the legal position still clearer. The learned Counsel for the election-petitioner had assailed the validity of this amendment on the