ANU SAXENA Vs. JESUS AND MARY COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Lecturer in Mathematics in the Jesus and Mary College, respondent no.1. On 9.3.2004 she submitted a letter expressing her desire to resign from the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 10.3.2004 She further added that three months' notice period may be adjusted against her earned leave. On 11.3.2004 the petitioner wrote to respondent no.2, namely, the Principal of respondent no.1, withdrawing the resignation letter of 9.3.2004 She reiterated her withdrawal vide another letter dated 22.3.2004 Subsequently she received a letter dated 19.3.2004 from respondent no.2 saying that her resignation submitted on 9.3.2004 had been accepted and that she stood relieved of her services w.e.f. 10.3.2004 The petitioner made a representation to respondent no.2 on 29.3.2004 and thereafter wrote to the Vice-Chancellor of the University and Director of the South Campus, respondents no.4 and 5, and to the Governing Body of respondent no.1, namely, respondent no.3, requesting for an intervention. The Director of South Campus wrote letters to respondent no.2 to ignore the letter of resignation. The relief prayed for by the petitioner is for quashing the acceptance of resignation vide letter dated 19.3.2004 and for a direction on the respondents to reinstate her along with back wages.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by respondents nos.1 to 3. They challenge the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that respondents no.1 to 3 are not State or other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution and that no fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated. Further, it is pleaded that respondents nos.1 to 3 are entitled to constitutional protection under Article 30 and have the fundamental right to appoint any staff or accept the resignation of its employee and for this purpose no permission or satisfaction of the Vice-Chancellor or any other officer of the University is required. In addition, it is pleaded that the petitioner is seeking to enforce a contract of personal service which cannot be enforced through law. Coming to facts, it is not denied that the petitioner had submitted a resignation letter and had also submitted a letter withdrawing her resignation two days after the first letter but submitted that before the letter dated 11.3.2004 and subsequent letters withdrawing the resignation were submitted, the resignation had already been accepted w.e.f. 10.3.2004 Further, it is contended that the Governing Body of the College, namely respondent no.3, had ratified the action of the second respondent in accepting the resignation. So far as the requirement under Para- 12 of Ordinance XII of the approval of the Vice-Chancellor for termination of services for a Teacher was concerned, respondents nos. 1 to 3 pleaded that the same was not applicable to the respondents being a minority institution protected by Article 30 of the Constitution.