1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6621 OF 2008 Mrs. Bharati Arun Thokale. ..Petitioner. Vs. President, Gram Prabhodhini and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.P.M. Gore for the Petitioner. Mr.A.M. Joshi for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER,2009 PC: 1 This is a petition filed by the teacher impugning an order dated 24.6.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune dismissing her appeal. It is an admitted position that the petitioner submitted a resignation letter on 8.3.2007 and the said resignation letter was accepted before it was sought to be subsequently withdrawn. It is also sought to be contended that the procedure under Section 7 of the MEPS Act read with Rule 40 had not 2 been followed and hence, resignation could not be accepted. It is contended that the resignation was not forwarded by RPAD as required under Rule 7 and three months notice under Rule 40 had not been given. All these points are no longer res-integra and are covered in the case of N.J.B.Ashram Vs. Rajendra reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 909 where this court has held that violation of procedure laid down under Section 7 read with Rule 40 is for the benefit of the management and violation thereof does not vitiate the resignation. Advocate for the petitioner relies upon subsequent judgment of this court in the case of Shrisant S.S.P. Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 533. The facts in the subsequent judgment were different in so far as the teacher had denied the very factum of resignation and the Single Judge of this court after referring N.J.B. Ashram (supra) concluded that while considering the case as to whether resignation was genuine or not, the court could consider the provisions of Section 7 of the 3 Act read with Rule 40 which may come to the aid of the teacher in case he is able to place other evidence on record that the resignation was not genuine. In the present case there is no such material on record because fact of submission of resignation was admitted but it was contended that it was obtained by force. The case of the petitioner was that the Head Master told her that her work was not proper and therefore, she could resign and therefore, in an angry mood she resigned. This factor cannot constitute force on the part of the Head Master and the resignation in question cannot be said to have been obtained by force. Besides this, the petitioner resigned on 8.3.2007 and the resignation was accepted on 17.3.2007 and there was sufficient interval in between, for the petitioner to have withdrawn his resignation which she did not do. In these circumstances, no interference is called for and hence, petition is summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)