SHARDA PAREEK Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Sharda Pareek, Assistant Secretary/assistant Director through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to order dated 15. 1. 2005 by which she has been treated to have retired with effect from 20. 1. 2005. She seeks quashing of the order aforesaid and as a consequence thereof, to be treated in continuous service with all consequential benefits. Brief facts on which the reliefs, as spelled out above, are sought to rest, reveal that petitioner was initially appointed in the Board of Secondary Education as Lecturer - School Teacher by direct recruitment. She was promoted on the post of Assistant Secretary in 1994. Seniority list (Anx. 1) of Assistant Secretary/assistant Director was issued on 7. 4. 1998. It is the case of petitioner that one P. C. Mahawar, who was much junior to her, was given regular appointment on the post of Assistant Secretary. Once again on 20. 10. 2004, persons junior to her were given promotion on the post of Dy. Secretary/dy. Director whereas the petitioner was left over. Constrained, she addressed a letter dated 21. 10. 2004 to the Chairman protesting that her juniors had been given promotion whereas she had been ignored. She also mentioned in the letter aforesaid that in protest of her being ignored for promotion, she be allowed to submit her resignation w. e. f. 31. 10. 2004. In response to the letter aforesaid, respondents vide letter dated 20. 11. 2004 (Anx. 3) enquired from her whether she wanted to resign or wanted to remain on sanctioned leave. She responded to the information sought from her, vide letter dated 27. 11. 2004 (Anx. 4) stating therein that she be treated on leave up to 10. 12. 2004. It is her case that she was verbally informed that her case was being considered for promotion on the post of Dy. Director/dy. Secretary. She then joined her duties on 18. 12. 2004. On 15. 1. 2005, however, the respondents informed her that letter dated 21. 10. 2004 written by her had since been accepted and she would be relieved from her duties with effect from 20. 1. 2005 treating her as retired. On 17. 1. 2005, she addressed a letter to the respondents stating that the letter of resignation stood withdrawn after she had intimated about her leave. She sent another letter by hand/fax as also registered post dated 19. 1. 2005 (Anx. 6) withdrawing her resignation. Letter dated 19. 1. 2005 (Anx. 6) concededly sent by the petitioner to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer reads as follows: To The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Chairman Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Ref. : Office order Sanstha. /2005/09 dated 15. 1. 2005 received on 17. 1. 2005. Sir, On receipt of your abovecited office order, I immediately intimated to your goodself on 17. 1. 2005 itself that I have withdrawn my voluntary retirement letter dated 21. 10. 2004 within duration of notice period. Still I have not been intimated anything about my retirement withdrawal letter. I again inform you vide this fax/registered letter/by personal delivery letter that my letter dated 21. 10. 2004 by treated as withdrawn and cancelled. Dated 19. 1. 2005sd/- Mrs. Sharda Pareek Assistant Director Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. "

(2.) PETITIONER is then stated to have received order dated 27. 1. 2005 (Anx. 10) whereby she was informed that no further action was to be taken on her letters dated 17. 1. 2005, 19. 1. 2005 and 23. 1. 2005. The motion bench vide orders dated 6. 5. 2005 while issuing notice passed the following order: " Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already informed the counsel for the respondent/caveator about the matter and despite information, nobody has appeared and rely has also not been filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission. Admit. Issue notice of the writ petition as well as of the stay petition. In the meanwhile, operation of the order dated 15. 1. 2005 (Annex. 5) and Annex. 10 dated 27. 01. 2005 shall remain stayed and respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post, which she was holding prior to passing of the order dated 15. 1. 2005 till further orders. "

(3.) WITHOUT disputing the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judicial precedents, as mentioned above, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSIDC Ltd. and Anr. vs. R. Varaprasad & Ors. 2003 (3) SLJ 114 and states that after taking into consideration the earlier judgments in Balram Gupta vs. Union of India and Another (AIR 1987 SC 2354), J. N. Srivastava vs. Union of India (AIR 1999 SC 1571) (supra), and Shambhu Murari Sinha vs. Project & Development India and Another (2000) 5 SCC 621 (supra), the Supreme Court has taken a different view and therefore, the impugned order accepting resignation of the petitioner needs no interference by this court.