DR. RAM KISHORE SHUKLA SON OF SRI S.N. SHUKLA, LECTURER KALA IN SHIV CHARAN DAS KANHIYA LAL INTER COLLEGE Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY (MADHYAMIK EDUCATION),

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case in which the petitioner, as a father, has given way to his son to get employment as L.T.grade teacher in the institution of the Respondent No. 3 by first tendering his resignation and thereafter, when the resignation was accepted and on the same day appointment was given to his son, he chose to withdraw his resignation subsequently and is now wanting to take advantage of the technicalities of law to continue as Lecturer.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 11.9.1973 as a L.T.grade Kala teacher in the Respondent No. 3 - institution. His appointment was duly approved by the District Inspector of School on 17.9.1973 and thereafter on 17,5.1975, the petitioner was confirmed on such post with effect from 27.8.1974. Then on 12.6.1979, on the request of the Manager of the college, the Deputy Director of Education upgraded the post of L.T.grade Kala to that of Lecturer Kala. with the condition that the post of L.T.grade Kala be not filled up. The petitioner was then promoted as Lecturer Kala, for which approval was duly accorded by the District Inspector of School and his promotion was made effective from the date of up -gradation of the post i.e. 12.6.1979. On 18.11 2003 the petitioner sent his resignation to the Manager of the Committee of Management stating that due to family circumstances he was unable to work as Lecturer. The said resignation was received by the Manager on 19.11.2003, which was placed in the next meeting of the Committee of Management held on 21.11.2003. Interestingly. Pawan Kumar Shukla, son of the petitioner, had been selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) as L.T.grade Kala teacher and on 18.9.2003 the District Inspector of School had written to the Manager/Principal of the Respondent No. 3 -institution to give appointment to said Pawan Kumar Shukla as L.T.grade Kala teacher. The said letter with regard to the appointment of the son of the petitioner was also placed in the same meeting of the Committee of Management held on 21.11.2003, in which the resignation letter of his father (petitioner) was placed. In the said meeting the resignation of the petitioner was first accepted (with the request that the petitioner be required to continue to work till the end of the academic session i.e. 30.6.2004) and thereafter it was resolved that the son of the petitioner the appointed as L.T.grade Kala teacher. The said decision of acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner was communicated to the petitioner by the Manager on 1.12.2003. Thereafter on 17.2.2004 the petitioner wrote to the Manager of the Respondent No. 3 -institution that since his family circumstances had changed, the resignation submitted by him on 18.11.2003, which was accepted on 23.11.2003. be treated as withdrawn. By an eider dated 2.5.2004, the Committee of Management rejected the request of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation before the District Inspector of School who also, by order dated 11.3.2005, rejected the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 2.5.2004 and 1 1.3.2005 passed by Respondents No. 3 and 2 respectively, this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents so treat the petitioner in service and permit the petitioner to work till his retirement and pay him his salary.

(3.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the resignation was taken from the petitioner by the Manager of the institution by force and although the said resignation was obtained on 23.1 1.2003 but it was ante -dated and shown to be as dated 18.1 1.2003. Such submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable as there is no whisper of such assertion in the letter dated 17.2.2004 of the petitioner seeking withdrawal of his resignation nor was there any complaint filed by the petitioner with regard to the management forcing him to tender his resignation.