that the letter must have reached the President's Secretariat with the request that this should be done, And, in the ordinary course of business, the head of the office concerned makes his endorsement on such letters. 432. The learned Judge had relied on Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, which runs as follows: “5 (a) The service of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasipermanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant: (b) The period of such notice shall be one month, unless otherwise agreed to by the Government and by the Government servant: Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month or any agreed longer period.” 433. The learned Judge had referred to Halsbury's Laws of England. Vol. V (Simond's Edn.), p. 61. where it was laid down that in a “corporation created by Statute for the discharge of public functions a member may not have an absolute right to resign at will, because the law may cast a duty upon the person elected to a public office to act in that office in public interest.” He also referred to an American case. Edwards M. Edwards v. United States. (1880) 26 Law Ed 314 to the effect that only the appointing authority could have accepted the resignation of an occupant of a public office and that under the special provisions of the law, the holder of such an office could be subjected to a penalty for a wrongful refusal to perform the duties of his office. The desire or wish of the holder of the office had to give place to public interest in such special cases. It is clear that the cases cited could have no relevance what-soever for an interpretation of Rule 5 setout above. 434. The learned Judge had then relied upon Raj Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 180 = (1968) 3 SCR 857 where this Court held that “normally, and, in the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority.” In that case there was a dispute between the Government servant and the Union of India on the question whether the Government servant concerned would withdraw his resignation after it was accepted. It was held that he could not. It was not a case of and agreement between the parties at all as to the date from which the resignation could effectively terminate service. It is true that in Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi. AIR 1972 SC 1302 = (1972) 3 SCR 841 when this very matter came up to this Court to decide whether an issue should be struck on it, this Court had sent back the matter to the High Court after holding that an issue should be framed to decide when Shri Kapur's resignation became effective and that this question “will