1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 480 OF 2008 (Balvikas Shikshan Sanstha & Anr. vs. Kum. Veena Shriram Thakur & Anr. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 01, 2008. Heard Shri Samarth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Shende, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Patel, AGP for respondent No.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the resignation was initially accepted by the School Committee in open meeting which was attended by Respondent No.1 also and wherein she openly accepted that she wanted to resign. The said resolution of School Committee is then approved by the Managing Committee in its meeting dated 12.9.2002. Shri Samarth, learned counsel contends that after acceptance of resignation, the same has become effective from the date of submission of resignation itself i.e. 27.7.2002. He further states that from letter dated 16.8.2002 written by Respondent No.1 to the petitioner, it is apparent 2 that she wanted to resign. He further wants to rely upon certain other documents to show that Respondent No.1 had in fact resigned and story of withdrawal of resignation on 23.8.2002 is by way of after thought. Initially it was argued that withdrawal was not pleaded at all before the School Tribunal, however, it was found that relevant page of appeal memo which is placed before this Court was not supplied to any of the respondents and perhaps the copy of learned counsel for the petitioner was also not having that page. The story of withdrawal on 23.8.2002 is very much pleaded by the appellant in their reply before the School Tribunal. This aspect has not been denied at all by the petitioners and the School Tribunal has found that withdrawal on 23.8.2002 was not being disputed. The School Tribunal has found that the Managing Committee is competent authority to accept resignation and before the Managing Committee could accept the resignation, it was already withdrawn. Therefore, it has granted relief to Respondent No.1. The appeal memo also shows that present Respondent No.1 before the School Tribunal specifically stated that she has received salary up to July 2003 and she also produced a Bank 3 Pass Book A/c No. 9677 before the School Tribunal as document No. T-3. This fact is also not denied by the petitioners before the School Tribunal. It is apparent that after her resignation has become effective, there was no question of making any payment of salary to Respondent No.1 by the department till July 31.7.2003. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to refer to other documents i.e. correspondence made by the petitioners with Bank or authorities of Education department. The facts show that before the resignation was even placed before the Competent Authority, it was withdrawn by the present Respondent No.1 i.e. appellant before the School Tribunal. No case is, therefore, made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.