authority covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Further, in the said case covered by the decision of the Supreme Court, it is found that an employee is not permitted to withdraw the application once having opted to come under the scheme. However, in so far as the present case is concerned, it is found that as per the clause 7.9 of the scheme, it is found that before communication of the acceptance, the employee is eligible to withdraw in writing, his or her application under the scheme and in such view of the matter, when it is found that the clauses contained in the voluntary retirement scheme offered by the defendant grants absolute discretion to the defendant either to accept or reject the application and when further the option is also given to the employee to withdraw the same at any point of time before the same is accepted and when the plaintiff has opted to go for under the scheme with the full knowledge of the abovesaid conditions and when it is further seen that the defendant's institution is not an authority falling under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and when as above discussed, the reasons given by the plaintiff as to the unfavourable working conditions for continuing his employment under the defendant's concern, are found to be not convincing and when it is further seen that no malafide intention has been offered on the part of the defendant in rejecting the application of the plaintiff and when even according to the plaintiff's case, the defendant has denied the benefits of the scheme not only to the plaintiff and accordingly, it is seen that merely because the defendant had accepted the applications of a few other employees, that by itself would not entitle the plaintiff as a matter of right to insist that his application should also be accepted by the defendant.
