LPA No.406 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.406 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.9.2010 Satwinder Kaur ...Appellant Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. M.L. Puri, Advocate for respondent No.4. Ranjan Gogoi, J. (oral) Heard. The appellant-writ petitioner, who was teacher in Punjabi in Guru Nanak Public School, Ludhiana, submitted her resignation on 17th December, 2007. According to the appellant-writ petitioner, she was not intimated about the acceptance of her resignation. In such a situation, on 20th December, 2007, the petitioner claimed to have withdrawn the resignation, which fact was also intimated to the Regional Director of CBSE, Chandigarh and also to the D.E.O., Secondary Education, Ludhiana. As the petitioner was not permitted to work, she submitted representations but there being no response, the writ petition, out of which this Letters Patent Appeal is arisen, was filed. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the LPA No.406 of 2010 2 view that from the reply submitted by the respondent school it was clear and evident that the resignation of the appellant-writ petitioner was accepted on the same day when it was submitted i.e. 17th December, 2007 and therefore, she could not have withdrawn the same three days later i.e. on 20th December, 2007. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that in the present case the resignation was accepted by the Principal who was not authorised to do so as the appointment of the appellant- writ petitioner was made by the Managing Committee. Learned counsel also submits that the acceptance of her resignation would not be effective until the same was communicated to the appellant, which was not done. Therefore, according to learned counsel, it was open for the appellant- writ petitioner to withdraw the same. The issues raised by the learned counsel for the appellant may have some substance but the same cannot be gone into by us in the Letters Patent Appeal inasmuch, the respondent No.4 is a purely private school and there will be serious doubt with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to satisfy the court that writ petition would be maintainable, by relying upon a decision of this court rendered in Jarnail Singh and others Vs. Khalsa High School, Ambala City and others, reported as 2005 (3) P.L.R. 438 and also the provisions in the Bye-laws of the CBSE. We are of the view that neither the said decision nor bye-laws would assist the appellant-writ petitioner. In Jarnail Singh's case (supra), the view of the Division Bench was that a writ would be maintainable against a LPA No.406 of 2010 3 privately managed unaided school in a situation where the school authorities were paying meagre amounts to the teachers of the school by way of salary. It is in the said facts that the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the actions impugned in that writ petition raised issues, that should be scrutinized in the domain of public law remedy. On the other hand the questions that arise in the present case pertain to matters of internal working of a purely privately managed school. The bye-laws of the CBSE are mere guidelines which are required to be followed by schools affiliated to the CBSE. The said bye-laws do not govern the service conditions of teachers of the affiliated schools. Merely because the respondent school is affiliated to the CBSE for the purpose of examinations, such affiliation will not make the respondent No.4 amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, decline to entertain this LPA and to go into the merits of the issues raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Instead, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the LPA by leaving it open for the appellant-writ petitioner to seek other remedies that may be available to her in law. The LPA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Ranjan Gogoi) Judge (Rajan Gupta) September 22, 2010 Judge 'rajpal'