IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.7.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Writ Appeal No.304 of 2001 & C.M.P.No.1978 of 2001 Anwarul Islam Aided Primary School, Vellore, rep. by its Manager, Pallikonda-635 809, North Arcot District. .. Appellant/3rd Respondent vs. 1. Smt.M.Dilshad Begum 2. District Elementary Educational Officer, Vellore, North Arcot District. 3. Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents/Petitioner & 1 & 2 respondents Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.7.2000 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.9216 of 1997 on the file of this Court. WP No.9216/1997: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in their proceedings No.Nil dated 20.12.95 and quash the same, and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher with all the consequential benefits such as back wages continuity of service. For appellant : Mr.A.Abdul Rahim For respondents: Mr.P.Ganesan for R-1 Mr.D.Srinivasan, Addl.G.P. for RR-2 & 3 JUDGMENT (The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J) The first respondent-Smt.M.Dilshad Begum was relieved from her post of Secondary Grade Teacher, by the order passed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant-Anwarul Lalam Aided Primary School (for short, 'the School'), dated 20.12.1995, but with effect from 12.12.1995. By the impugned order dated 21.7.2000, the learned single Judge, having held the order illegal, the said School has preferred this Writ Appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher by the Management of the appellant-School on 3.7.1991 after approval by the State official against a sanctioned post. While she was working, she received the impugned communication dated 20.12.1995. Before the learned single Judge, the first respondent highlighted that her services were terminated highlighting various allegations made and thereby, the order of termination was not legal. 3. The Management of the appellant-School had taken a plea that the first respondent-writ petitioner, having submitted a resignation, she had been relieved with effect from 12.12.1995. 4. In reply, on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the Management of the appellant-School has not forwarded her resignation letter and no approval under Rule 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules'), was taken from the competent authority of the State. 5. According to the appellant-School, Rule 17-A of the Rules, which was inserted in the year 1981, is not applicable to the minority institutions, under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and it was in response to a show cause notice dated 14.10.1995, the first respondent tendered her resignation voluntarily, though according to the first respondent, the resignation was taken on coercion. 6. It is not in dispute that the School in question is a recognised School of the State. It may be a minority institution, but in view of the fact that the said Rules is applicable to all the recognised Schools, the appellant cannot state that the same is not applicable to the minority Schools. 7. Rule 17-A of the Rules bars acceptance of resignation either at the time of appointment or subsequently without approval of the competent authority under the said Rule. Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 17-A, no teacher or other person employed in a private school, shall be relieved from service on the strength of resignation letter and the resignation letter, shall, on receipt, be sent to the Chief Educational Officer concerned in respect of teacher and other persons employed in High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools and Teachers' Training Institutes and to the District Educational Officer concerned in respect of teacher and other person employed in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a Pre-primary, Primary and Middle Schools. The Chief Educational Officer or District Educational Officer concerned shall in turn get the confirmation of the teacher or other person employed, as the case may be, as to the fact of such resignation and then accord his approval to relieve the teacher or other person employed, as the case may be, from service. 8. In the present case, as admittedly without any approval of the competent authority, the first respondent was relieved on 20.12.1995, that too from retrospective date of 12.12.1995, the learned single Judge rightly set aside the relieving order. 9. In the absence of any merits, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. C.M.P. is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cs To 1. District Elementary Educational Officer, Vellore, North Arcot District. 2. Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-600 006. +1cc to Mr.S.Mani, Advocate Sr 30721 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 30458 +1cc to M/s.K.Sridhar Associates, SR 30197 BKY(CO) km/20.7. Writ Appeal No.304 of 2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/