Delhi High Court
Delhi Police Public School vs Director Of Education And Anr. on 16 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 129 (2006) DLT 272
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.1.2003 by which he has dismissed the writ petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.
4. The writ petitioner was a TGT teacher in the Delhi Police Public School (the appellant). On 6.6.2001 he gave an application to the Principal of the School which reads as follows:-
To Date 06.06.2001
The Principal
Delhi Police Public Schol
B-4, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi- 110029.
Madam,
Under the Prevailing atmosphere of the school. I am giving one month notice so that I may seek better employment. I will resign as I get a job in another Institution.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Mrs. S.M. Uppadhayaya)
P.E.T.(TGT)
5. True copy of the same is Annexure P-3 to the writ petition.
6. Thereafter on 6.7.2001 he wrote another letter on 6.7.2001, copy of which is Annexure P-4 to the writ petition.
7. It is alleged in para 9 of the writ petition that respondent school has misconstrued the letter dated 6.6.2001 which had only expressed an intention and was not a resignation at all. However, by letter dated 6.7.2001, Annexure P-1 to the writ petition, the Principal wrote to the writ petitioner that his service has come to an end. That letter states:-
Mr. Shailendra Upadhyay, (PET)
DC-9/140, Sector-7
Rohini, Delhi.
Date: July 9, 2001
With reference to your application dated 6.7.2001 requesting for withdrawal of resignation within the notice period of one month, you are hereby informed that the notice period expired on 5.7.2001.
Your services are no longer required by the school w.e.f. 6.7.2001.
Sd/-
(RUCHI SETH)
Principal
8. The petitioner made repeated representations to the school to allow her to continue but to no avail. Hence, the writ petition.
9. Counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition by the Manager of the school and we have perused the same.
10. It is alleged therein that the letter of the petitioner dated 6.6.2001 was a letter of resignation. It was placed before the Managing Committee of the school and was accepted w.e.f. 6.7.2001 vide Annexure R-1.
11. Learned Single Judge in para 6 of the impugned Judgment has observed that the subsequent letter of the petitioner dated 6.7.2001 amounts to withdrawal of the resignation and hence the letter dated 9.7.2001 of the school accepting his resignation cannot be held to be valid. The learned Single Judge has held that the resignation was withdrawan before its acceptance and this was permissible in view of the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Mishra and in Union of India and Anr.v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarthy 2000(7) SCALE 442. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
12. Moreover, apart from that we are of the view that the letter of the writ petitioner dated 6.6.2001 does not amount to a resignation at all. A careful perusal of the words of the said letter shows that it was merely an intention to resign and not a resignation. The purpose of giving one months notice was that the Management could seek an alternative teacher but it was subsequently mentioned in the letter dated 6.6.2001 that' I will resign as I get a job in another Institution. In our opinion, this means that the petitioner had stated that he will resign when he will get a job in another institution. Hence, in our opinion, the letter dated 6.6.2001 is not a resignation letter at all.
13. For the reasons given above, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
