SHANTA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that arises for consideration in this petition filed by Principal, of Jatiya Bal Vihar Junior High School. Khurja, Bulandshahr. is whether a resignation could be accepted by the authority before the due date mentioned in the notice.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Principal in the institution on 1.11.1975. It appears the relation between the petitioner and the committee of management were not good in 1992. She resigned on 9.3.1992 prospectively. In the notice given by her, it was mentioned that she was resigning due to personal reasons. The letter mentioned that she may be relieved of the duty after three months by accepting her resignation. But the committee of management was in great hurry. It accepted the resignation on the same day. On 15.3.1992, the petitioner lodged a first information report that her resignation has been obtained under duress on 9.3.1992 at 9.30 a.m. by the Manager of the college, her husband and certain other members of the committee. The petitioner on 21.3.1992 sent a letter to the management that she could not attend the institution, as she was unwell. Two days thereafter, she withdrew her resignation. She sent a letter to all concerned that she had withdrawn her resignation and she being well was now present to discharge her duties. There are various letters, which were exchanged between the parties in support of their stand. But the respondent did not permit her to join. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition for issuing a direction to the respondent to treat her as principal of the college.

(3.) I have heard Sri R. N. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not necessary to decide whether the resignation letter was obtained forcibly as the claim of the petitioner that she having withdrawn her resignation before the due date, the letter sent by her became non est in law and its acceptance by the respondent before the due date did not bring an end to her services is correct. The argument of Sri Krishna Murari, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, was that the management having accepted her resignation, her services came to an end on 9.3.92 itself. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra and others, AIR 1978 SC 694, were not applicable to the facts of this case.