The judgment establishes the importance of complying with statutory resignation procedures to prevent undue pressure on employees and ensure the genuineness of resignations.

Rule. Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent teacher, waives service of rule. Mr. Vanarase, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. With the consent of advocates, matter is heard today finally.

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner-management has challenged an order passed by School Tribunal, Pune Region at Sholapur, dated 25th March, 2008 in Appeal No. 98 of 2006 by which the School Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent -teacher and set aside the order of termination dated 14th November, 2005.

3. The respondent-teacher (hereinafter "the respondent") had preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The case of the respondent is that he was appointed as an Assistant Physical Teacher in the school on 11th June, 2001 as he possessed qualification of B.A. B.P.Ed. It is his case that he had served for four years and five months till 13th November, 2005. It is also the case of the respondent that he had completed the probation period satisfactorily and he was having unblemished tenure and that he was a permanent employee of the school. It is also his case that his services were terminated on 14th November, 2005 without following the due process of law even though he was a permanent employee of the School.

4. The said appeal was resisted by the school management on the ground that the respondent was not having a permanent status in the employment and that he has suo motu gave resignation from the post with effect from 31 st May 2005 and since then he is not in service. The resignation was forwarded to the Education Officer and another Assistant Physical Teacher Mr. Narayan Bhosal was appointed on the said vacant post. It is the case of the management that since the appellant had resigned, his appeal before the Tribunal was not competent. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the theory of so-called resignation is not believable. The Tribunal has found that the respondent had put in more than four years service continuously and he had acquired the status of a permanent employee. It has been found that the resignation was not sent as per the prescribed procedure as contemplated under section 7 of the Act read with Rule 40 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Considering the aforesaid aspect, the Tribunal held that it cannot be said that the concerned employee had tendered his resignation on his own volition but his services were terminated orally. It has been found that even he had signed the muster roll thereafter which muster roll has been considered by the Court which is at Exhibit-31 on record. On this it was found that the stand of the management is falsified by the evidence on record and it is also found that it cannot be said that the respondent had resigned on his own accord from the post in question.

5. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that once a teacher has tendered his resignation, he cannot approach the Tribunal by way of appeal under section 9 of the Act. Mr. Joshi has further submitted that it is not mandatory that a teacher must send resignation by registered post. He further submitted that simply because the teacher has not sent his resignation by registered post itself is not sufficient to hold that such resignation is not legal. Mr. Joshi further submitted that the procedure, therefore, is merely directory and not mandatory. In order to substantiate his argument, Mr. Joshi has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Hon. Secretary, Talini Imadadiah Committee Mistry High School, Ratnagiri and another vs. Wasif Pasha Tajoddin Jagirdar, 2005(4) Mh.L