SHAKUNTALA TANDON Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL parties are represented at the time when this matter was presented. The first five respondents are State respondents. The respondent no. 6 is the Committee of Management represented by Mr. Nurul Huda, Advocate. One Smt. Daya Sharma has sought impleadment in the writ petition, which the Court has permitted and she has been added as respondent no. 7. Thus, upon issue of notices parties are represented.

(2.) ON facts there is no issue as the contesting respondents, in so far as the essential facts are concerned, narrate the same facts as the petitioner.

(3.) BY her letter of 24 November 1993, 21 December 1993, the petitioner intimated the District Inspector of Schools-II (Balika), Agra, (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) that in the matter relating to an option exercised by her earlier, being her letter of 2 January 1991, on which the District Inspector of Schools has yet to take a decision. she elects to withdraw the announcement to retire at the age of 58 years and would like to continue until the age of 60 years, an age also applicable to teachers as the date of retirement. In the meantime, the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 29 December 1993 asked the Committee of Management to send its comments along with three copies of the letter of the petitioner seeking to withdraw her option to retire at the age of 58 years. The letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 29 December 1993 is appended as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Now comes the relevance of the letter which the petitioner addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, dated 24 November 1993. 21 December 1993. It appears that the management sent nothing to the District Inspector of Schools, Further, the District Inspector of Schools, instead, was requiring the Committee of Management to send the option form by which the petitioner had elected to withdraw her consent to retire at the age of 58 years. In effect, the petitioner's option to withdraw her consent to retire at 58 years remained unconsidered at the office of the District Inspector of Schools. This is further fortified by the fact that it was rejected as late as on 21 January 1994 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) when the District Inspector of Schools intimated the petitioner that under law there is no provision that her earlier option by which she had agreed. to retire at 58 years, could be returned to her, or, for that matter, questioning her discretion to withdraw her option, though while in service. This communication of the District Inspector of Schools, dated 21 January 1994 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) has been impugned by the present writ petition.