1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5311/2010 (Swatantra Sangram Sainik & another VERSUS Ku. Manisha P. Gaikwad & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.M. Sudame, counsel for the petitioners. Shri P.N. Shende, counsel for the R-1. Shri J. Mokadam, counsel for the R-2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 12 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Chandrapur on 24.09.2010 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and setting aside the order dated 04.07.2002 accepting the resignation of the respondent no.1. By the said order, the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service with continuity of service and full back wages from 26.06.2002. The respondent no.1 was working as an Assistant Teacher with the petitioners from 11.07.1999. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that her appointment was made after following the due process for selection and approval was also granted by the Education Officer to the appointment of the respondent no.1 on the post of Assistant Teacher. The respondent no.1 claimed permanency on the post of Assistant Teacher and it is the case of the respondent no.1 that when she tried to join the duties 2 after completion of the leave period on giving the birth to a child, the petitioners did not permit her to join the duties and conducted an illegal enquiry against her. The respondent no.1 stated in the appeal memo filed before the School Tribunal that the petitioners misused a blank paper signed by the respondent no.1 and typed the so called resignation letter and also accepted the same by the order dated 04.07.2002. The respondent no.1 pleaded that the resignation letter dated 26.06.2002 was a fabricated document and the management had misused the blank papers, which were got signed from the respondent no.1 at the time of her appointment. Since the management accepted the resignation letter, which was prepared by the management, by the order dated 04.07.2002, the respondent no.1 challenged the same before the School Tribunal and sought for her reinstatement. The petitioners filed the reply and denied that the respondent no.1 was a permanent employee. It was pleaded by the petitioners that during the pendency of the enquiry conducted against the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 had voluntarily tendered her resignation, which was accepted by the petitioners on 04.07.2002. The petitioners pleaded that there was no substance in the appeal and the same was liable to be dismissed. On an appreciation of the documents on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 24.09.2010, held that the services of the respondent no.1 were otherwise terminated and the respondent no.1 had not tendered any resignation, which could have been accepted by the petitioners on 04.07.2002. The Tribunal observed that there were two other teachers namely Shri Bire and Shri Meghare, 3 had filed appeals against the petitioners before the the School Tribunal contending therein that they had not voluntarily resigned and the management had fabricated the resignation letters. The Tribunal observed that there were only four teachers in the school, of which three had allegedly resigned according to the petitioners and this fact clearly showed that there was a malpractice on the part of the management. The Tribunal further observed that the so called resignation tendered by the respondent no.1 was doubtful as the respondent no.1 had complained about the said fact to the Education Officer and the Education Officer had expressed his opinion that the resignation letter of the petitioner and also Shri Bire, who had filed another appeal, appeared to have been typed on the same typewriter. The Tribunal considered the letter of the Education Officer, wherein, it was observed that the matter in both the resignation letters was almost the same. The Tribunal considered the document no.4, dated 04.12.2007 issued by the Education Officer, which showed that the respondent no.1 was ready to work with the petitioner. The Tribunal observed that after availing the earned leave and the medical leave, the respondent no.1 had tried to attend the school on 05.01.2002 but, the petitioners had not allowed her to join. Certain other documents were also considered by the Tribunal to hold that the respondent no.1 was desirous of joining her duties and there was no reason for her to tender the resignation letter. The Tribunal observed, and rightly so, that had the respondent no.1 really tendered her resignation, she would not have immediately filed a complaint to the Education Officer on 08.07.2002 after she admittedly received the communication of the order 4 dated 04.07.2002, on 06.07.2002. Since the respondent no.1 had appointed a representative on the Enquiry Committee, the Tribunal observed that the respondent no.1 was desirous to continue her services with the petitioners and she was willing to work. In the aforesaid set of facts, the Tribunal held that it was highly improbable that the respondent no.1 would have resigned. The cogent reasons are recorded by the Tribunal for holding that the respondent no.1's services were otherwise terminated by basing their case on a resignation, which was not tendered by the respondent no.1 at all. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent no.1 on the post of the Assistant Teacher with continuity of service. The judgment passed by the School Tribunal on 24.09.2010 is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE