IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN W.P.No.13690 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Stella Mary Petitioner Vs. 1.The Joint Director of Elementary Education, (Higher Secondary) College Road, Chennai – 6 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore District. 3.The Correspondent, G.M.R.C. Middle School, Mettupalayam, coimbatore . .. Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to rejoin duty as B.T. Assistant (English) as per the proceedings in Oo.Mu.No.6076/A5/2010 dated 08.12.2010 of the second respondent with all service and monetary benefits within a time limit. For Petitioner :Mr.ChellaPandian for M/s. S. Mani For RR1 and 2 : Mr. P. Karthikeyan Govt. Advocate (Education) For R3 : Mr. B. Ravi O R D E R The petitioner who alleged to have resigned from the post as B.T. Assistant from the third respondent/G.M.R.C. Middle School has come before this Court seeking Mandamus directing the third respondent to allow her to rejoin the duty as B.T. Assistant. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as B.T. Assistant in the third respondent school on 23.03.2009 and her appointment was approved on 21.12.2009. It is, however, due to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pressure given by the third respondent, the resignation letter was given by the petitioner on 16.08.2010. The said resignation letter was sent by the third respondent for approval from the second respondent / The District Elementary Educational Officer, who on 08.12.2010 refused to accord approval for the resignation. Even after non granting of approval, the third respondent refused to allow the petitioner to rejoin the duty. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court. 3. Mr.Chella Pandiyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not tender the resignation voluntarily and it was obtained by coercion by the third respondent. There is no necessity for the petitioner to resign from the post. After obtaining the resignation letter from the petitioner, it was sent for approval which was rightly refused by the second respondent for non-compliance of Rule 17(A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974. Therefore, the petitioner prays for Mandamus. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this court, in S. Soundararajan Vs. The Director of School Education, Madras and another) reported in 1996(I) CTC 275, another judgment in W.A.No.1129 of 1995 and Anwarul Islam Aided Primary School Vs. M. Dilshad Beguum and unreported judgment in W.A.No.304 of 2001 and another judgment in A. Imam Hussain Vs. The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) and another in W.P.No.8762 of 2005. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent strenuously contended that there is no question of obtaining resignation letter highhandedly from the petitioner. Secondly, if the resignation letter is obtained forcibly, the petitioner should have revoked the resignation letter and in the absence of that the resignation letter is valid. Thirdly, he submitted that it is for the Educational Agency to accept the resignation letter and only relieving of the petitioner alone is to be approved by the second respondent. The third respondent as Educational Agency immediately accepted the resignation letter and the resignation came in to force. He relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Grama Committee High School, Rep. by its Secretary Vs. I. Arunachalam and another reported in 100 L.W, Part 18, Page 543. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner concealed the material facts and she is guilt of material alteration with regard to the resignation letter. Therefore, the petitioner could not be given the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the approval was rejected without even hearing the third respondent and therefore, the non approval order is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Heard the parties and perused the records. 7. According to the petitioner, the resignation letter was obtained on 16.10.2010. If any resignation has been obtained or tendered by the concerned teacher, it has to be approved by the second respondent as per Rule 17(A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974, which is extracted as follows:- 17-A. Educational agencies not to obtain compulsorily resignation letter either at the time of appointment or subsequently from the employees in their school:- (1) whenever a teacher or other person employed in a private school, tenders his resignation of appointment he shall inform the fact of his resignation in writing by registered post with acknowledgement due to the District Educational Officer, Inspectress of Girls School of the Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned. 2. No teacher or other person employed in a private school shall give to the educational agencies at any time undated or predated resignation letter. 3. No educational agency shall insist or compel any teacher or other person employed in a private school to give at any time undated or predated resignation letter. 4. No teacher or other person employed in a private school shall be relieved from service on the strength of resignation letter. The resignation letter shall, on receipt, be sent to the Chief Educational Officer concerned in respect of teacher and other persons employed in High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools and teachers' Training Institutes and to the District Educational Officer concerned in respect of teacher and other person employed in a Pre-primary, Primary and Middle Schools. The Chief Educational Officer or District Educational Officer concerned shall in turn get the confirmation of the teacher or other person employed, as the case may be, as to the fact of such resignation and then accord his approval to relieve the teacher or other person employed, as the case may be, from service. 5. Entries regarding the date of acceptance of resignation of appointment shall be made by the Secretary of the School Committee, in the Teachers https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Service Registers of the Teacher or in the Service Registers of the other persons employed in a private shool under proper attestation and duly countersigned by the District Educational Officer or the Inspectress of Girls' Schools as the case may be. 6. No Substitute shall be appointed in the place of a teacher or other person employed in a private school who has been relieved on the basis of the resignation letter tendered by him, without obtaining prior approval of the Chief Educational Officer concerned in respect of the teacher and other person employed in High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools and Teachers' Training Institutions and the District Educational Officers concerned in respect of teachers and other persons employed in Pre-primary, Primary and Middle Schools. 9. The aforesaid said Rule 17-A is to safeguard the teachers against Act of Educational Agency to get resignation letter either at the time of appointment or subsequently. If any resignation letter is sent for approval, the Chief Educational Officer concerned shall in turn has to get the confirmation of the teacher or other persons employed as to the fact of such resignation and then accord his approval to relieve the teacher. 10. In this case, the third respondent sent the resignation letter to the second respondent on 13.10.2010 for approval. After receipt of the said letter, the petitioner was called for an enquiry to confirm whether the resignation was actually tendered by the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the third respondent on 08.01.2011 and deposed that she was pressurised to resign the job and further expressed her willingness to continue in the post. What is contemplated under clause (4) of Rule 17(A), is to get confirmation by the second respondent with the concerned officer and not with the management. Therefore, the contention of the third respondent that the third respondent was not heard before passing of the rejection of approval dated 08.12.2010, is liable to be rejected. Moreover, it is not open to the third respondent to assail the said order in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. So far, the rejection order has not been challenged by the third respondent and therefore, it is binding on the third respondent. 11. After confirmation from the petitioner, it was factually found by the second respondent that the resignation letter was obtained three months in advance, and therefore the second respondent refused to grant approval. It was also made clear that to approval letter was sent belatedly. There is no quarrel with regard to the dictum laid down in the judgment reported in 100 L.W, Part 18 page 543, with regard to the powers of the Educational Agency. Even in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ paragraph No. 20 of the said jdugment it has been observed that if the educational authority finds that the resignation is not voluntarily tendered, there will not be no resignation in the eye of law. In fact the said judgment supports the petitioner's case. The authority found after verification from the petitioner that the resignation is not voluntarily. The above facts would make it clear that the authorities verified with the petitioner's resignation and rejected the approval of the relieving of the petitioner. Therefore, the resignation is not an valid in the eye of law. 12. As the second respondent refused the grant approval, it is very clear that the resignation has not at all come into effect and the petitioner is deemed to be in the service. That apart, the third respondent has not challenged the non approval order. In these circumstances, the third respondent cannot deny the petitioner to rejoin the duty as B.T. Assistant. 13. For the above reasons the Writ of Mandamus as prayed for is allowed and the third respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to rejoin the duty within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs. 14. For the reporting compliance, call on 30.09.2011. Sd/ Asst.Registrar //True Copy// Sub.Asst.Registrar trp To 1. The Joint Director of Elementary Education, (Higher Secondary) College Road, Chennai – 6 2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore District. 3. The Correspondent, G.M.R.C. Middle School, Mettupalayam, coimbatore. 1 cc to Mr.R.Subramanian , Advocate, Sr.No.56726 1 cc to Mr.S.Mani , Advocate, Sr.No.56617 W.P.No.13690 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 sj(co)pmk.23.9.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/