Civil Writ Petition No.18796 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.3.2011 Surjit Singh JBT Teacher, SGAD Khalsa High School ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.M.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.2. Mr.Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher by the Managing Committee of Siri Guru Arjun Dev Khalsa High School (respondent No.3) (for brevity “respondent-Managing Committee”), by virtue of appointment letter dated 20.1.1982 (Annexure P1). The probation period of one year of the petitioner was stated to have been illegally extended by the respondent-Managing Committee. As the extension period of his probation beyond two years was against the provisions of Education Code and Punjab Privately Managed Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), therefore, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Director of Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab (respondent No.2) (for short “DPI Schools”) on 18.4.1984. 2. Sequelly, the petitioner claimed that as soon as the respondent- Managing Committee came to know about the filing of his appeal, it immediately Civil Writ Petition No.18796 of 1991 2 removed him on the basis of resignation (Annexure P3) already taken from him at the time of his initial appointment. The resignation already taken from the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment was stated to have been subsequently used as a device to terminate his services by accepting it, by virtue of impugned order dated 31.8.1984 (Annexure P3/1). 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted by the DPI (Schools), by way of order dated 22.9.1988 (Annexure P4). However, the appeal filed by the respondent-Managing Committee was accepted by the Presiding Officer of School Tribunal, Punjab (respondent No.1) (for brevity “School Tribunal”), by means of impugned order dated 13.11.1990 (Annexure P5). 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P3/1 and P5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia pleading therein that his services were terminated by the respondent-Managing Committee on the basis of resignation already taken from him at the time of his initial appointment, it put up a fake date as 23.8.1984, which is clear from the report of handwriting expert and illegally accepted his resignation on 31.8.1984 (Annexure P3/1). His extension of probation period was also stated to be illegal and violative of provisions of the Act and Education Code. 5. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioner that the respondent-Managing Committee has illegally accepted his resignation (Annexure P3) already submitted by him at the time of his initial appointment by introducing the date as 23.8.1984, vide impugned order (Annexure P3/1). The impugned orders (Annexures P3/1 & P5) were also stated to be illegal and arbitrary. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of the impugned orders (Annexures P3/1 and P5) in the manner indicated hereinabove. 6. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. Respondent Civil Writ Petition No.18796 of 1991 3 Nos.3 and 4 filed their joint written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The petitioner was stated to be guilty of concealment of material facts that on 12.1.1990 he was appointed as a JBT Teacher in Government Primary School, Shieth Block, Tarn Taran. 7. On merits, the case set up by the contesting respondents, in brief in so far as relevant, was that since the work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, so his probation period was extended from time to time. The respondent-Managing Committee claimed that since the petitioner wanted to run his own private school and he issued advertisement in this regard, so, he of his own submitted his resignation (Annexure P3) on 23.8.1984 and after the expiry of period of 8 days of tendering his resignation, the same was accepted on 31.8.1984, by virtue of impugned letter (Annexure P3/1). The pleaded plea of the petitioner was stated to be an after thought and concocted. The appeal filed by the respondent-Managing Committee was claimed to have been rightly accepted by the School Tribunal, vide impugned order (Annexure P5). It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 9. As is evident from the record, that petitioner claimed that he submitted his resignation at the time of his initial appointment, which was subsequently accepted and used as a device to terminate his services, vide impugned order (Annexure P3/1). On the contrary, according to the respondent- Managing Committee that since the petitioner wanted to run his own school and he issued advertisement, so, he himself voluntarily tendered his resignation dated Civil Writ Petition No.18796 of 1991 4 23.8.1984, which was rightly accepted on 31.8.1984, vide impugned order (Annexure P3/1). 10. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P3/1), the appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted by the DPI (Schools), vide order (Annexure P4). However, the appeal filed by the respondent-Managing Committee was accepted by the School Tribunal, by means of impugned order (Annexure P5), the operative part of which is as under:- “I have considered the arguments advanced by both the counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record of this case. It is an admitted fact that the resignation was submitted by the respondent. The respondent admits his signatures on the resignation but has taken the plea that his signatures were obtained on the resignation at the time of his appointment and that the date was put on the resignation letter by some other functionary of the management later on. This plea cannot be accepted to be correct. The services of the Respondent were terminated in accordance with the resignation letter so submitted by the respondent. The resignation letter was forwarded by the Headmaster of the S.G.A.D. Khalsa High School, Agara Pachhara on 23.8.1984. According to Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence Act all acts performed in the discharge of the official duties are presumed to be correct unless contrary is proved. It is also evident that the respondent was not interested to continue in service because he got an advertisement in the newspaper issued to the effect that he had been running his own private School. This also finds support that the respondent was not interested to continue in service. Under these circumstances, I accept the appeal of the Management and set aside the order dated 22.9.1988 passed by the Director of Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab.” 11. Thus, it would be seen that the facts of this case are neither intricate nor much disputed and the controversy boils down to a narrow compass. 12. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this case is, as to whether the petitioner has voluntarily tendered his resignation, which was accepted, vide impugned order (Annexure P3/1) or not? Civil Writ Petition No.18796 of 1991 5 13. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer is in the affirmative that it was the petitioner, who himself furnished his resignation (Annexure P3), which was duly accepted by the respondent-Managing Committee, by way of impugned order dated 31.8.1984 (Annexure P3/1). 14. Ex facie, the plea of the petitioner and argument of his counsel that the resignation (Annexure P3) submitted by him at the time of his initial appointment was subsequently used to terminate his services, incorporating the date on it as 23.8.1984 and was wrongly accepted, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 15. What is not disputed here is that the resignation (Annexure P3) bears the signatures of the petitioner. He is a JBT Teacher. It is highly improbable to believe that he would submit his undated resignation at the time of his initial appointment. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted), he has so submitted his resignation at the time of his initial appointment, then he would have the ample opportunity to withdraw the same till it was accepted. Neither he had withdrawn his resignation nor made any sort of complaint to any authority in this relevant connection. The mere fact that the handwriting expert found that the date on the resignation was with a different ink, is not a cogent ground to presume that the date was introduced by the respondent-Managing Committee. The possibility of putting the date on it by the petitioner cannot possibly be ruled out under the present set of circumstances. 16. Not only that, the School Tribunal has examined the original file and noticed that the petitioner wanted to run a private school in the name and style of Shahid Udham Singh Public Model School in village Mano Chahal Kalan and he issued advertisement in this regard, which was available at page 18 of the original file. It supports the version of the respondent-Managing Committee that as the petitioner wanted to run his own school, therefore, he voluntarily resigned from his Civil Writ Petition No.18796 of 1991 6 post and issued advertisement for new admissions in his school. The petitioner has neither denied that he never issued any such advertisement nor any cogent material is forth coming on record in this respect. On the other hand, the positive case of the respondent-Managing Committee from the very beginning was that after tendering his resignation, he started and is still running his private school. 17. If all the material facts and circumstances, emanating from the record as discussed hereinabove, are put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inescapable that it was the petitioner, who wanted to run his own private school, issued advertisement and has voluntarily tendered his resignation (Annexure P3), during the period of his probation, which was rightly accepted by the respondent- Managing Committee, vide impugned order (Annexure P3/1), which was affirmed by the School Tribunal, by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P5). Therefore, the contrary arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 18. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. The petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher on probation for a period of one year, vide appointment letter (Annexure P1). He issued advertisement, which finds mentioned in the impugned order (Annexure P5) that he wanted to run his own school. The petitioner has neither specifically challenged nor denied the same, rather he mentioned in para 4 of his writ petition that such allegations are required to be proved. 19. Meaning thereby, the petitioner has not denied that he did not issue any such advertisement. Not only that, the respondent-Managing Committee has specifically reiterated in para 4 of the written reply that petitioner issued advertisement and wanted to run his own school. The file containing pumphlets and advertisement at page 18 was produced before the School Tribunal. The petitioner did not file replication to controvert all these allegations. Moreover, no contrary and cogent evidence/material is forth coming on record to prove that Civil Writ Petition No.18796 of 1991 7 petitioner was not running his private school after acceptance of his resignation. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted) if there is any irregularity in the acceptance of his resignation, vide impugned order (Annexure P3/1), even then, no relief can be granted to him at this belated stage, as he remained working in his private school. 20. In this manner, the School Tribunal has recorded the valid reasons, taken into consideration and analyzed the cogent material on record in the right perspective and accepted the plea of the respondent-Managing Committee, by way of the impugned order (Annexure P5). Such order containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until, the same is illegal and perverse. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 21. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 22. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 7.3.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No