LPA No.1163 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1163 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision August 04, 2011 S.D. Senior Secondary School …..Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 19.04.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the respondent No.3-Smt. Devinder Arora had successfully withdrawn her resignation. It is appropriate to mention here that she had given three months’ notice with a specific averment that the notice was to take effect from 01.08.2007 and she was to be relieved on 31.10.2007. A categorical finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that she sent her withdrawal letter on 29.10.2007, which has been received by respondent No.2-District Education Officer on the same day, but the appellant pleads that the same was not received by the appellants on 29.10.2007. It has been conceded that the communication was received on 1 LPA No.1163 of 2011 (O&M) 31.10.2007 despite that she was relieved on 31.10.2007(A.N.). Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has reached the conclusion that once the resignation was withdrawn before the effective date given then no acceptance could have been accorded by the appellant. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has made an attempt to argue that the period of 90 days is required to be counted from the date the resignation was tendered. However, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid argument because in her resignation letter dated 31.07.2007 (P- 4), the respondent has in unmistakable terms stated that the notice may be deemed to have commenced from 01.08.2007 and she may be relieved on 31.10.2007, after stating that it may be treated three months’ notice. Therefore, we are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India , 1968 SLR-730. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE 04.08.2011 vcgarg 2 LPA No.1163 of 2011 (O&M) 3 LPA No.1163 of 2011 (O&M) 4