Resignation Tendered Over Alleged Harassment Not 'Voluntary': P&H High Court Permits IIT Ropar PhD Scholar To Continue Studies
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Ropar to allow a PhD scholar to resume her studies, holding that her resignation was not voluntary but tendered under compelling circumstances arising from alleged harassment by faculty members. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 211]Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "this Court has no hesitation to declare that the...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Ropar to allow a PhD scholar to resume her studies, holding that her resignation was not voluntary but tendered under compelling circumstances arising from alleged harassment by faculty members. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 211]
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "this Court has no hesitation to declare that the resignation was not voluntary, rather, it was under the compelling circumstances, as explained above. Therefore, the petitioner has all right to get her such resignation withdrawn. The request of the petitioner for withdrawal of her resignation, ought to have been accepted, which was neither considered, rather kept pending for about three months, propelling the petitioner to approach this Court."
In a notable observation, the Court urged the Institute to adopt a sympathetic approach and create an atmosphere allowing the petitioner to resettle and complete her studies.
"In view of the peculiar circumstances, as reflected from the conduct of the respondent/Institute, as they are hotly contesting this litigation, this Court requests the Director of the respondent/Institute, to sympathetically consider all the circumstances, and thereby, try to create an atmosphere allowing the petitioner to resettle and complete her studies," it added.
The Court allowed the plea filed by Fatima Maqsood, setting aside the Institute's decision dated November 22, 2025, whereby her resignation was accepted on the very same day it was submitted.
“Resignation Not Voluntary, But Under Compelling Circumstances”
The Court observed that the contents of the resignation letter clearly indicated that it was not a resignation simpliciter, but one submitted due to continued alleged misconduct and harassment by faculty members.
It noted that the petitioner had, a day prior to resigning, lodged a complaint on November 21, 2025, seeking action against multiple faculty members. However, no action was taken on the complaint.
“Once no cognizance was taken on the complaint, she, on account of consistent harassment, has submitted a resignation… the same was not voluntary,” the Court held.
“Lightning Speed” Acceptance Questioned
The Court took strong exception to the manner in which the resignation was processed and accepted within a single day, observing that the Institute acted with “lightning speed” without addressing the student's grievances.
"The supervisor of the respondent/Institute, instead of taking care of future of the student, on the same very day, with a lightning speed, recommended the acceptance of the resignation, which was subsequently endorsed by the Head of the Department, and finally accepted by the Registrar of the respondent/Institute, which in fact, reflects that the respondent/Institute, was in a hurry to get rid of the petitioner," added the bench.
It further pointed that the irrelevant objection raised before the Court, by the counsel for the Institute, clearly reflects their conduct, that they still do not wish the petitioner to join back, to continue her studies, rather their attempt is only to get rid of the petitioner.
It further remarked that instead of safeguarding the future of a student, the authorities appeared to be “in a hurry to get rid of the petitioner.”
Technical Objections Rejected
The respondent Institute had raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition and alleged concealment of facts, including the petitioner's subsequent admission elsewhere.
Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that such objections had no bearing on the legality of the resignation's acceptance and termed them irrelevant to the core issue.
The Court also permitted amendment of the petition to include a challenge to the resignation acceptance order, noting that the petitioner should not suffer due to technical defects in drafting.
Right To Withdraw Resignation Upheld
Relying on Supreme Court cases, the Court emphasized that resignations tendered under distress or coercive circumstances cannot be treated as voluntary and may be withdrawn.
It held that the petitioner's request for withdrawal of resignation ought to have been considered by the Institute instead of being kept pending for months.
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the resignation acceptance order and issued a mandamus directing IIT Ropar to permit the petitioner to continue her PhD programme forthwith.
At the same time, the Court directed the petitioner to adhere to her undertaking, granting liberty to the Institute to take disciplinary action in case of any violation.
Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the respondent.
Title: Fatima Maqsood v. Indian Institute of Technology, Ropar