M M SHARMA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitioners, being the employees of the respondent no.2 Vaishali International Public School, a recognized unaided private school within the meaning of The Delhi School Education Act, 1973, by this writ petition seek a declaration that the letters dated 2nd / 3rd March, 1998 submitted by them, of resignation from the respondent no.2 school, are void and inconsequential and a mandamus directing the respondent no.2 school to treat the petitioners to be in continuous service and entitled to protection of pay and all other benefits. The petitioners claim that during March, 1998 the Chairman of the respondent no.2 school told them that the school would be shut down by 31st March, 1998 and they would be relocated in other branches of the school; on such representation/assurance, their signatures on the resignation letters were taken and which they signed in good faith; however the respondent no.2 school failed to accommodate the petitioners in the other branches and as such the petitioners on 7th April, 1998 withdrew their letters of resignation dated 2nd / 3rd March, 1998. The petitioners contend that under Rule 114A of The Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the resignation of an employee of a recognized school is to be accepted within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the resignation by the Managing Committee with the prior approval of the Director. The petitioners contend that the respondent no.2 school on 10th March, 1998 had sought such approval from the respondent no.1 Directorate of Education (DOE) and which approval was declined vide letter dated 6th May, 1998. The contention of the petitioners is that since their resignations dated 2nd / 3rd March, 1998 could not have been accepted by the respondent no.2 school without the approval of the DOE and which approval had not been received till 7th April, 1998, when the resignations were withdrawn, the resignations were withdrawn before acceptance, as is permissible in law and the respondent no.2 school cannot avail itself of any benefit from the said resignations.

(2.) The respondent no.2 school in the counter affidavit has relied upon the proviso to Rule 114A (supra) to the effect that if no approval is received within 30 days, then such approval would be deemed to have been received after the expiry of the said period. It is thus contended that the letter dated 6th May, 1998 declining the approval, issued after the expiry of 30 days, is of no avail in as much as on the expiry of the said 30 days, there was deemed approval of the DOE.

(3.) The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 5th July, 2000. The petitioners preferred an intra Court appeal being WA No.566/2000. The Division Bench vide order dated 19th August, 2004 in the appeal remanded the matter for fresh consideration.