2010 Supreme(Bom) 1764

2011 (3) ALL MR 659
In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. DESHPANDE
Bahujan Vikas Mandal & Another
Versus
Ku. Manda Vithalrao Parsutkar & Another
WRIT PETITION NO. 5790 OF 2007
Decided on : 22-12-2010

Headnote:Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Section 7-Resignation-Voluntarily-Letter of resignation by an employee in his own handwriting to be mandatory-Putting signature and date on letter of resignation by an employee in his own handwriting also mandatory-Resignation letter cannot be typed written or printed-Such process of preparing a letter of resignation under Section 7 of Act to be mandatory.-The phrasal verb "draw up" used in Section 7 above, connotes the process of hand- writing as against the process of typing or printing. The object of Section 7 is to express an intention to voluntarily resign from the post, and such an intention can be made clear by preparing, composing, creating or writing out such letter of resignation by an employee in his own handwriting. To hold that such a letter of resignation can be typed written or printed, would defeat or frustrate the very object of Section 7 of the said Act. The use of word "shall" preceding the phrasal verb "draw up" in Section 7, indicates the process of preparing a letter of resignation in his own handwriting, to be mandatory.

       The next requirement of Section 7 in the process of resignation, is to sign both the copies of letter of resignation. Obviously the signature has to be of an employee intending to resign the post. Hence, the employee has to put signature on the letter of resignation in his own handwriting. Consequently, putting the date on the letter of resignation has also to be in the handwriting by an employee intending to resign the post. Both these requirements of signing the letter of resignation and putting the date thereon, are the part of one sentence and preceded by a phrase "draw up a letter of resignation in duplicate", which is held to be mandatory. Hence, the requirement of putting signature and the date on the letter of resignation by an employee in his own handwriting, has also to be held as mandatory. In the circumstances, no one would imagine that the date to be put on the resignation, which is in the handwriting of an employee, would be typed or printed.

       Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Section 7-MEPS Rules, 1981, Rule 40(3)-Resignation-Termination of service-Alleged letter of resignation relied on by management in printed form-Signature thereon denied by employee-respondent-Letter of resignation not written by employee in his own handwriting-Resignation given effect during vacations-Prohibited under Rule 40(3) of Rules-Police complaint against management for preparing false resignation letter lodged at end of vacations-Resignation not voluntarily-Liable to be set aside.-The letter of resignation dated 30.7.2002 is not in the handwriting of the respondent No. 1 employee. The date put thereon is also not handwritten. The respondent No. 1 employee has disputed the signature appearing thereon. Thus, execution of such letter is disputed. The letter of resignation has not been received by the registered post, but the management claims to have received it by an ordinary post. The respondent No. 1 employee has disputed to have forwarded such a letter of resignation to the management. Thus, there is no assurance that the respondent No. 1 employee has drawn a letter of resignation and that the resignation produced was voluntary in the sense that the management has not used the blank paper signed by the employee, to type out a letter of resignation. There is no assurance that the employee was subjected to any kind of pressure or coercion or that the management has not taken undue advantage of compelling teacher to give resignation. Thus, there is total non-compliance of requirements of Section 7 of the said Act, which makes the resignation involuntary and void-ab-initio.

       If the respondent No. 1 really intended to resign from the post, she would not have sent the resignation during the period of vacation, which is the prohibition contemplated by sub-rule (3) of Rule 40. If the notice of resignation is given in breach of prohibition under sub-rule (3) of Rule 40, then that would make resignation as invalid.