MAHESH CHANDRA TYAGI Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this writ petition pertains to the interpretation of Rule 114-A of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (in short Rules).

(2.) The petitioner herein was appointed on temporary basis to the post of the T.G.T.(Science) by respondent No.2 on 10th July,1987. His services were regularised in July,1989. He continued to work as such thereafter. On 3rd September, 1991 he submitted a conditional resignation giving three months notice as he had qualified the written test for the post of T.G.T. (Science) with respondent No. 1. In response to this conditional letter of resignation, the respondent No. 3 informed him that he would be relieved from service w.e.f. 3rd December, 1991. On 3rd December,1991, the petitioner applied for extension of notice period till 3rd March, 1992 This was acknowledged by the respondent No. 3 and the period was extended till 2nd March, 1992. The petitioner for the reason mentioned in the letter dated 30th January,1992 with drew his conditional resignation and reported for duty on 3rd March,1992. He was, however, not allowed to join by respondent No 3. Against the said action the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 and also challenged the action of respondents No. 2 and 3 by lodging a complaint in writing on 7th April, 1992. Respondent No. 1 reconsidered the approval already accorded and directed the respondents No.2 and 3 to take back the petitioner in service. Respondents No.2 and 3 have refused to comply with the order passed by respondent No. 1. It is this action of respondent No. 2 and 3 which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The Management and the School Authorities have raised legal objection regarding the maintainability of this petition on the ground that said respondents being private bodies are not ameniable to writ jurisdiction besides they have refuted petitioner's averments on merits. It is their case that the petitioner has concealed in the petition the factum of acceptence of his resignation and approval accorded by the Director of Education thereon. Once the resignation has been accepted and approval accorded by the Director of Education under Rule 114-A, nothing survives in this writ petition. Further the Management vide its letter dated 24th September, 1992 accepted the resignation and relieved the petitioner from service w.e.f. 2nd March, 1992. The Director of Education having accorded the approval could not review his order. Even otherwise, formal approval was not warranted for the reason that as per the provision of Rule 114-A me approval deemed to have been accorded after me expiry of 30 days of me communication to the Director of Education. The directions by the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 8th September, 1992 are without jurisdiction having no force. Having once accorded me approval or deemed approval, the respondent No. 1 had no power to stay the relieving of the petitioner from the services. Moreover, me post has already been filled up and there is no existing vacancy with respondents 2 and 3.