CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3051 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 19 ,2011 S.D.Senior Secondary School, Yamuna Nagar .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. S.D.Senior Secondary School, Vishnu Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, has filed this writ petition primarily to impugn the order dated 12.1.2009, Annexure P-13, whereby the order passed by the School, relieving respondent No.3 from her duties as a Teacher from the School, has been set-aside. Respondent No.3 had joined as a J.B.T Teacher on 8.11.1985. Somewhere in the year 2001 and subsequently in 2003, she was served with some notices that she was not able to perform her duties properly because of her ill health. Still, the management CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3051 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: kept on cooperating her. On 31.7.2007, respondent No.3 served a notice for voluntary resignation on medical ground. Respondent No.3 specifically pleaded that she be relieved on 31.10.2007. This request was formally approved by the Managing Committee by passing resolution on 1.9.2007 and respondent No.3 was relieved on the afternoon of 31.10.2007. The petitioner claims to have received a letter dated 29.10.2007 through post. On 31.10.2007 also, the petitioner had received a letter from the office of District Education Officer at 2.45 P.M. In response, the School informed the DEO that respondent No.3 had already been relieved in the afternoon of 31.10.2007. The petitioner-School also served a notice on respondent No.3 to clear her dues. Thereafter, respondent No.3 had approached the Commissioner and Director General School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, by filing appeal against the order vide which she was relieved despite the fact that earlier request made had been withdrawn. It is pleaded that the withdrawal of request was received much prior to the date, when relieve order was to become effective. The appeal filed by respondent No.3 was allowed and order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Manager of the governing body of the School was set-aside. The School has accordingly challenged this order through the present writ petition. Though counsel for the petitioner would challenge the maintainability of the appeal filed by respondent No.3 before the Commissioner, yet, in my view, that will not be a major issue as primarily it is to be seen whether respondent No.3 had made a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3051 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: request for withdrawing her notice of resignation prior to the effective date of its acceptance or not. Concededly, respondent No.3 was relieved on the afternoon of 31.10.2007. Two days before that, on 29.10.2007, respondent No.3 had already made a request for withdrawing the notice issued by her for resignation. This letter was received by the District Education Officer, who had forwarded the copy of the same to the School, which was concededly received by the petitioner-School on31.10.2007 at 2.45 P.M., as stated in the writ petition. In this background, to urge that the letter addressed by respondent No.3 was not received by the School till 2.11.2007 appears to be a made up story and a defence of convenience apparently raised by School to justify the action in relieving respondent No.3 on the afternoon of 31.10.2007. Respondent No.3 was relieved in the afternoon of 31.10.2007 and letter withdrawing the request was concededly received in the afternoon. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 and the official respondents, it is seen that copy of the request withdrawing the resignation was submitted to respondent No.2 and was received in the office vide Diary No.5708 dated 29.10.2007. If the letter submitted by respondent No.3 could be received in the office of respondent No.2 on 29.10.2007, there would not be any reason to construe that the same letter had not been sent to the School as well and had not been received earlier. In any event, a copy of letter was received on 31.10.2007 and action could very well have been taken to withdrawn the relieving order. I am not prepared to accept the defence as projected by the petitioner-School. Even on merits, the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3051 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: School has no case to plead and as such, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. April 19,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE