Bombay High Court
Vithal Zipam Patil vs Vasudha Laxman Hole on 3 August, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2342 OF 1996
Vithal Zipam Patil,
Indian Inhabitant, Adult,
Aged about 46 years,
R/o Dhule, Vice President of
Public Education Society,
Professor Colony Road, Deopur,
Dhule, Tal. And Dist. Dhule - PETITIONER
VERSUS
Smt.Vasudha Laxman Hole,
Indian Inhabitant, Adult,
Aged about ___ years,
Residing at Lane No.5,
House No.1566/1,
In front of "Navasacha Maruti",
Dhule, Tal. And Dist. Dhule - RESPONDENT
Mr.B.R.Warma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Bolkar h/f Mr.R.B.Raghuwanshi, Advocate for the respondent.
( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
DATE : 03/08/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner Education Society is aggrieved by the judgment
and order dated 18/10/1994 by which Dhule Appeal No.9/1994
preferred by the sole respondent appellant was allowed and she was
directed to be reinstated on her original post of Head Mistress with all
benefits from the date of the removal.
khs/AUGUST 2017/2342-d
2. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for
the respective sides.
3. The respondent/appellant was appointed as a Head Mistress
on 06/06/1990. On 24/06/1993, it is contended by the Management
that she tendered her resignation voluntarily. As the Management
found a suitable candidate for the post of Head Mistress, a resolution
was passed accepting the resignation of the appellant on
20/03/1994. She was therefore directed to handover the charge to
the newly appointed candidate. However, the record reveals that the
appellant withdrew her resignation on the same date 24/06/1993.
4. The Tribunal has recorded that the appellant had stated in her
withdrawal letter that she had lost her mental balance and had
erroneously tendered a resignation on 24/06/1993 which she was
withdrawing on the same day. The Trial Court concluded that when
the withdrawal of the resignation is immediate and when the
Management had made a remark under the signature of the
President on 28/06/1993 "continued on duties", it cannot be
concluded that the resignation was accepted subsequently by the
Management.
khs/AUGUST 2017/2342-d
5. It is the case of the appellant that she was continued in
employment by the Management thereafter. The School Tribunal
recorded that the letter of the Management dated 04/04/1994 would
indicate that they had directed the appellant to handover her charge
when she had already withdrawn her resignation on 24/06/1993
and had continued to work till 23/03/1994. Such acceptance of
resignation after almost 9 months and by keeping the appellant in
employment pre-supposes that the resignation stood withdrawn and
could not have been accepted. Moreover, she had promptly
withdrawn it on the same day.
6. Considering the above, I do not find that the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal could be termed as being perverse or
erroneous. This petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
khs/AUGUST 2017/2342-d
