* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3758/2008 VINITA VASHISHTH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Advocates versus MANAV STHALI SCHOOL & ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Sonia Sharma, Adv. for GNCTD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 16.05.2008 1. The petitioner has impugned order dated 23rd January, 2008 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal in the present appeal. 2. The petitioner was appointed as TGT (Chemistry) with Manav Sthali School in July, 1986. In January, 1996 the petitioner was granted maternity leave till 4th April, 1996. The petitioner thereafter joined back the school but from July, 1996 onwards she started absenting herself. In the month of July and August, 1996 she was absent for 6 days and 7 days respectively. 3. In September, 1996 she came to school only for 9 days and from 17th September, 1996 she completely absented herself. It is the case of the petitioner that her child was sick for a period of 3 days in July, 1996 and later on in the month of July 1997 she herself was sick and therefore she could not attend and perform her duties as teacher. This hardly explains the period of 4 years from September, 1996 till July, 2000. 4. It is an admitted case that after September, 1996, the petitioner has not worked in the school. The petitioner claims that she was not allowed to rejoin in September, 1996 but there is no letter or correspondence during this period till 14th August, 2000 making the said allegation. On the other hand, the petitioner had written letters asking for leave upto 30th March, 1998. The respondent school by letter dated 12TH June, 1998 informed the petitioner that she had been on unauthorized leave since 23RD September, 1996 and had not cared to join in spite of letter dated 20th October, 1996. The petitioner did not dispute the facts stated in letter dated 12th June, 1998 but in her reply dated 16th June, 1998 claimed that she had not received the letter dated 20th October, 1996. 5. By another letter dated 28th July, 1998, the petitioner was permitted to rejoin but give an undertaking that she would take her job seriously and will not take leave. The petitioner affirmed but did nothing thereafter till 2000. She did not rejoin. No letter was written after 13th October, 1998 till 21st July, 2000. 6. On 21st July, 2000 the petitioner sent her resignation letter which was accepted by the Management Committee of the school in its meeting held on 28th July, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 3rd August, 2000 requesting for release of her salary for the month of September, 1996 and for payment of her contributory fund, gratuity and other benefits. The management of the school also informed the Department of Education about the resignation of the petitioner and the fact that the said resignation has been accepted by the management committee. Letter in this regard was sent by the respondent/school to the Directorate of Education on 2nd August, 2000. I may note here that the petitioner herein had concealed before the Tribunal the fact that she had written letter dated 3rd August, 2000 for release of her salary for the month of September, 1996 and for payment of her contributory fund, gratuity and other benefits. Only thereafter, the petitioner sought to revoke and withdraw her resignation through legal notice dated 14th August, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was entitled to withdraw the resignation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on Section 114A of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 in support of his contention that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw the resignation before approval was granted by the Directorate of Education. 7. I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition for I find that the petitioner had joined another school in April, 1998 and was working there. I also find that the petitioner had concealed this fact in the appeal which was filed before the School Tribunal. Having joined employment in a third school, the petitioner, had abandoned her employment with the respondent school. The employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent school came to an end. It is also admitted fact that from September, 1996 the petitioner has not been working with the respondent/school. No doubt she had sent letters seeking leave in 1996/1997 but she was not granted leave. The petitioner cannot claim leave as a matter of right. The petitioner was absent from September, 1996 till July, 2000. The period of absence is very long and cannot be condoned. The respondent/school is responsible for providing education to the students studying in the said school. The petitioner was a teacher in the said school and should have been conscious of her responsibilities and obligations towards the school and students. No institution or school can function, if employees go on leave without approval and for long periods. The conduct of the petitioner is such that she is disentitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of these facts and circumstances I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 16, 2008. Vld/P