SIVANTHIPATTI NADAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. R PAULRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the stage of admission 1st respondent who is the contesting respondent, has entered caveat. Respondents 2 and 3 are the statutory authorities. Learned Government Pleader to appear for them.

(2.) AS the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.

(3.) HOWEVER, learned single judge has gone into the facts and has observed thus: ' The petitioner has given the resignation thereafter. His argument is also untenable. If the resignation was given on 1. 10. 1994 as contended, it would have certainly found a place in the resolution of the committee meeting particularly so when the correspondent and President of the third respondent school were present in the said meeting. Thus, viewed from any angle, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner tendered his resignation voluntarily. On the other hand, he has been agitating right from 19. 8. 1994 that the resignation was taken from him under compulsion. Having regard to the contravention of Rule 17-A (1), (4) and (6) also, it cannot be accepted that the resignation given by the petitioner was voluntary and it could be accepted. The Educational Authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction in holding an enquiry instead of just taking confirmation from the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 17-A (4 ). Further having heard to the decision on the case of Grama committee High School represented by its Secretary v. I. Arunachalam and another, 100 L. W. 543 in my view, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, paragraphs 16,20 and 21 of the said Judgment read thus: ' It is only to govern such voluntary resignations, R- 17-A was introduced by g. O. Ms. 586, dated 2nd April, 1981. The necessity for framing a specific rule was brought about by the unscrupulous tactics adopted by several educational agencies in obtaining undated resignation letters from teachers even at the time of appointment or predated letters of resignation from them by force and making use of them whenever they like. When such instances came to light, in multitude, the Government thought fit to frame R- 17-A in order to explode the camouflage adopted by the educational agencies for terminating the services of innocent and gullible teachers under the garb of resignation letters which were not in fact voluntary (Para. 16) The last part of Cl. (4) of the Rule makes it clear that the educational authority shall accord its approval to relieve the teacher on getting the confirmation of the fact of resignation. The language of this clause is mandatory. When once the fact of resignation is confirmed, the educational Authority shall accord its approval to relieve the teacher from service. For the second time, the clause uses the words' relieve. . . from service.' There is no ambiguity with regard to the subject matter of approval to' relieve from service.' There is also no uncertainty in the function of the concerned official under the clause. What all he has got to do is to get confirmation of the fact of resignation. If there is no confirmation, he shall not give his approval and if there is confirmation, he shall accord his approval (Para-20 ). It is needless to point out that the educational agency would not forward the letter of resignation to the educational authority if it chooses not to accept the resignation of the teacher. It is, therefore, fallacious to contend that unless and until the Educational Authority accords his approval, there can be no acceptance of the resignation or that the acceptance is inchoate and in complete. The provision in Cl. (5) that the entries regarding the date of acceptance of resignation in Teachers' Service Register shall be made by the Secretary of the School Committee under proper attestation and duly counter-singed by the Educational Authorities makes it clear that the educational Authorities have nothing to with the acceptance as such. As and when the educational agency chooses to send the resignation letter of the teacher to the educational authority, the acceptance becomes complete. If the resignation is not voluntary, the acceptance thereof would be of no effect whatever. If the Educational Authority finds that the resignation is not voluntary, there will be no resignation in the eye of law. Hence, the validity of the acceptance of the resignation depends on the truth and voluntary nature of the resignation and not on the approval of the Educational Authority. (Para. 21)' In the result, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: 1. The writ petition is allowed 2. The impugned orders are quashed; and 3. The petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits that flow from quashing the impugned orders.' ;