1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LPA NO.26/2011 IN WP NO.5790/2007 (D) [Bahujan Vikas Mandal, Akola and another .vrs. Ku. Manda Vitthalrao Parsutkar and another] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JULY 14, 2011. Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for respondent no.1. The School Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge has disbelieved the story of resignation on 30.7.2002 by respondent no.1. The learned Single Judge has given four reasons therefor. Shri Parchure has taken us through those reasons, to urge that those reasons may not and in any case cannot justify interference that there was no resignation on 30.7.2002. According to him, writing 2 various letters was within the powers of respondent no.1 and hence those letters written by her could not have been taken as evidence in support of her story. We have perused those orders. We find that four reasons recorded cumulatively lead to inference that had there been resignation on 30.7.2002, respondent no.1 would not have written those letters. The learned Single Judge has also considered resignation itself in paragraph 17 and found that resignation did not meet requirements of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rule 40 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981. The resignation is admittedly typed written and date thereon is also in typing. Thus, except the signature of respondent no.1 upon it, there is nothing in her handwriting. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, correctly applied the law. The resignation has been sent by ordinary post, as alleged and has been received by the management on 1.8.2002. Not only this, 3 after acceptance of resignation from 30.7.2002, there is subsequent material on record in the shape of correspondence between the parties and that correspondence also shows efforts made by respondent no.1 to join duties. In view of this material on record, we do not see anything wrong in concurrent findings recorded by the School Tribunal as also by this Court. The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, rejected. No costs. Shri Parchure seeks continuation of interim protection for further period of four weeks to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in the matter. Shri Ghare opposing the request. In the interest of justice, interim orders are continued for further period of four weeks from today, which shall cease to operate thereafter automatically. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande