MALA TANDON THUKRAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 04.03.2008 whereby the petitioner was relieved from her duties as a primary teacher w.e.f. 03.03.2008. The petitioner also seeks directions for reinstatement to her previous status as a primary teacher with retrospective effect.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was a primary teacher in the respondent no.4 school. On account of personal reasons the petitioner submitted her resignation on 5.12.2007 and on 6.12.2007 she approached the Principal and expressed her desire to withdraw her resignation. The very next day i.e. on 7.12.2007 she approached the Principal stating that she is withdrawing her resignation and to treat her earlier resignation as null and invalid. On the very same day the Principal informed the petitioner that the resignation tendered by the petitioner has been accepted by the competent authority on 6.12.2007 and it is not possible to entertain the withdrawal of the resignation letter. Thereafter the petitioner repeatedly approached the school authorities but in vain. She then approached the Regional office of the Directorate of Education, who sought clarification from the Principal of the respondent no.4 school. In the reply the respondent no.4 school stated that the resignation of the petitioner dated 5.12.2007 was forwarded to the Chairman, Managing Committee for approval and the same by a resolution through circulation was accorded approval on 6.12.2007 and hence, the resignation stood accepted on 6.12.2007. After this the petitioner approached the School Tribunal, which passed the order that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and hence the present petition.

(3.) Mr. V. Shekhar, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not in a proper state of mind at the time of submission of her resignation letter dated 5.12.2007. He further submitted that after submitting the resignation the petitioner had discussed the matter with the family members who counseled her to withdraw the resignation letter and accordingly on 6.12.2007 the petitioner took up the matter with the Principal and later on submitted the withdrawal letter dated 07.12.2007. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that before the withdrawal of the said resignation letter by the petitioner, no decision was taken by the Managing Committee of the School nor any approval of the same was sought by the Managing Committee of the School, therefore, the petitioner was well within her rights to withdraw her resignation letter before it was finally accepted by the school in accordance with Rule 114-A of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. Inviting the attention of this court to the letter dated 6.12.2007 addressed by the school to the Members of the Managing Committee and copy of the resolution attached with the said letter, the counsel contended that the resolution purported to have been passed by the members of the Managing Committee by circulation does not contain any date and even the same is not signed by six of its members. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even as per the resolution, resignation of the petitioner was accepted w.e.f. 3.3.2008 and therefore also the petitioner was well within her rights to have withdrawn her resignation prior to the said date of 3.3.2008. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 11.12.2007 when the Principal had forwarded the resignation letter to the Education Officer, Zone-XIII, by that time the withdrawal letter of the petitioner was already in possession of the school but still the same was not forwarded by the school to the Education Officer and such an act on the part of the respondent school would clearly show their malafide and ulterior designs. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the alleged acceptance of the resignation letter of the petitioner on 6.12.2007, just within 24 hours of its submission would demonstrate utter haste on the part of the respondent to the detriment of the valuable rights of the petitioner who was not given enough time by the school to rethink her decision.