HYDERALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in O. P. 16693 of 1999 is the Manager of the A. M. U. P. School, Vettom, Tirur. 5th respondent in that Original Petition was a teacher appointed by that Manager. That teacher submitted a resignation letter as per Ext. P1. The resignation letter is though dated 1. 5. 1996, it is understood by all the parties as 1. 6. 1996. According to the petitioner manager, he accepted it as per Ext. P2 dated 3. 6. 1996. As per R. 48, Chap. 14a, Kerala Education Rules, no teacher shall be relieved before the expiry of the term of appointment without previous approval of the Educational Officer. The matter was moved before the District Educational Officer. In the meantime, the teacher withdrew his resignation on 15. 6. 1996. This is not disputed by either of the parties. The Assistant Educational Officer himself is aware of that withdrawal of resignation as is seen from Ext. R5 (c) produced along with the counter affidavit of the teacher the 5th respondent in O. P. 16693 of 1999. Anyhow, subsequent to that, the Assistant Educational Officer considered the matter in accordance with the said rule and issued Ext. P4 order. Ext. P4 order does not refer to the withdrawal of the resignation. In Ext. P4, the resignation and its acceptance was approved. The teacher had, in the meantime, approached this Court with O. P. No. 19558 of 1996. That Original Petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the District Educational Officer, to consider the matter and to pass appropriate orders. He issued Ext. P6 upholding Ext. P4. Aggrieved by Exts. P4 and P6, the teacher approached the Government in revision. The Government heard the teacher as well as the Manager and took note of the withdrawal of the resignation before its approval as per Ext. P4 by the Assistant Educational Officer and directed the petitioner/manager to readmit the teacher to duty, as per Ext. P7 order dated 10. 6. 1999. That order is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner Manager in this Original Petition.

(2.) IN the meantime, the Manager had appointed the petitioner in O. P. 17012 of 2000, obviously in the available vacancy. But the appointment was not approved. There arose a further vacancy and the petitioner in O. P. 8400 of 2000 was appointed against that vacancy. That appointment was approved. They have approached this Court seeking approval of appointment or payment of salary, as in the wake of Ext. P7 in O. P. 16693 of 1999 payment of salary to the petitioner in O. P. 8400 of 2000 was stopped.

(3.) WHEN this dictum is followed, necessarily, there was nothing for the Assistant Educational Officer to approve as per Ext. P4, because the resignation had already been withdrawn before it had taken effect. As per R. 48, Chap. 14a K. E. R. , resignation will take effect only after approval by the Assistant Educational Officer. Then alone the teacher can be relieved from service. Therefore, the view taken in Ext. P7 has to be sustained, though on a different reason as mentioned above. In such circumstances, O. P. 16693 of 1999 has to fail and the direction in Ext. P7 has to be upheld.