Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7389 of 2007 The Head Mistress, G.M.Sadhubela Girls High School and Junior College & anr. ..Petitioner V/s. Miss. Chhabria Khimya Ganeshomal & anr. ..Respondents Ms.N.S.Bagawe iby Mr.C.P.Sengaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.V.N.Tayade, Advocate for Respondent No.1 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 7th March, 2008 : 7th March, 2008 : 7th March, 2008 P.C. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner School which is aggrieved by the Judgement and order dated 14-8-2007 rendered by the School Tribunal, New Mumbai thereby allowing Appeal No. 29/2007. School Tribunal directed Respondent No. 1 to be reinstated by setting aside the otherwise termination dated 5-5-2005 and 8-9-2005. 2. The Respondent was working as a Head Clerk at the relevant time and she had put in about 21 years of service. She was not allowed to report for duty from 5-5-2005 and/or 8-9-2005 and, therefore, she approached the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 29/2007. 2 3. The Management filed reply and contended that the Appellant had voluntarily retired from 31st January, 2005. She was placed under suspension so as to conduct a departmental enquiry into the serious charges levelled against her as per the order dated 2-2-2005 and on 7-3-2005 she had sent her resignation. On these counts the management contended that there was no question of termination of service and, therefore, the Appeal was not maintainable. The School Tribunal did not agree with the contentions raised by the management. 4. I have gone through the letters dated 23-2-2005 and the first letter of the said date requests for withdrawal of the order of suspension and to resume duties whereas the second copy of the said letter has been placed on record and it is contended that on 7-3-2005 she submitted a resignation. By referring to the second part of the said copy of the letter dated 23-2-2005, no common man of ordinary prudence will accept the management’s contention that on 7-3-2005 the Respondent No.1 has submitted a resignation. Even otherwise under the MEPS Rules, 1981 there is a procedure prescribed in Rule-40 for submitting resignation. The provisions of the said rule have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.B.Shaikh v/s. N.Z.Kulange & Ors. (1992 I CLR J.B.Shaikh v/s. N.Z.Kulange & Ors. (1992 I CLR J.B.Shaikh v/s. N.Z.Kulange & Ors. (1992 I CLR 3 414) 414) 414) and it is clear that alleged resignation did not meet the requirements of Rule-40. Even otherwise the so called resignation dated 7-3-2005 is most unreliable and no teacher would submit a resignation in the manner claimed by the Petitioners. The Petitioners claimed that resignation dated 7-3-2005 is part of the letter dated 23-2-2005 and that originally the said letter dated 23-2-2005 was received by the management without the said portion of the resignation. The view taken by the School Tribunal, therefore, cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Petition is rejected summarily. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]