G M WANI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by an ex -Munsiff who was working as such in the Sub -ordinate Judiciary of the State. On August 21, 1995, he addressed a letter to the Registrar of this Court stating that he thereby resigns from his service. By a communication dated February 27, 1996, Registrar of this High Court communicated to the petitioner that his resignation has been accepted by the High Court. On June 4, 1999, by a letter again addressed to the Registrar of the High Court, the petitioner withdrew his resignation. In the writ petition, the principal contention is that, he having been appointed by the Governor, his resignation could only be accepted by the Governor and that having not been accepted until June 4, 1999, as entitled to, he has withdrawn the resignation and, accordingly, his status as Munsiff continues and, therefore, he is entitled to all benefits attached to such status.

(2.) IN course of hearing, the petitioner sought to give an impression, by referring to various letters written by him to this Court, that the employees of his court had created such a situation that he was forced to give the said letter of resignation. The letter of resignation, however, admittedly did not utter a single word which would suggest that the same was not a voluntary act on the part of the petitioner but he was being compelled by circumstances to do so.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of the High Court drew our attention to various letter written by the petitioner to the High Court subsequent to the date of his letter of resignation wherefrom it appears that the object of giving the letter of resignation was to enable the petitioner to sit in the examination for appointment to Higher Judicial service of the State. The learned Advocate General also drew our attention to the fact that after the communication of the decision accepting the resignation of the petitioner, the petitioner did appear in the examination for being appointed in the Higher Judiciary of the State but he failed and, thereupon, in 1998 he applied for being enrolled as an Advocate and was so enrolled. In the background of these facts which are documented, it would not be appropriate on our part to permit the petitioner to canvass that for the situation allegedly created by the employees of his court he had tendered his resignation.