The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirements of Section 7 of the Act of 1977 and Rule 40 of the Rules of 1981 in the context of resignation letters, and the court's emphasis on the voluntary nature of resignations and the conduct of the respondents.

JUDGMENT

G. A. Sanap, J. - The appellants have challenged the identical judgment dated 02.03.2010, passed by the learned single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 2796 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 5232 of 2006. The appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 305 of 2010 is the husband while the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 418 of 2010 is the wife. In the writ petitions they had challenged the judgment dated 12.04.2006 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No. 23 of 2000 and Appeal No. 22 of 2000, whereby their appeals were dismissed. The learned single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions and confirmed the judgment delivered on 12.04.2006, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Amravati.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

In the appeals before the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Amravati the appellants sought the declaration that the communication dated 22.01.2000 shown to have been 'Resignation Letters' addressed to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is null and void and consequently, prayed for setting aside the communication dated 29.04.2000 issued by the respondent No.2 in terms of the so called acceptance of their resignations and consequently, prayed for their reinstatement. It is the case of the appellants that they are qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. The appellant- Smt. Sunita Mohod was appointed as 'Assistant Teacher' in the year 1990 and Shri Sanjay Pohokar was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1992 in respondent No.1- School. The appellant- husband was eligible to be promoted as Headmaster. However, incharge Headmaster Shri. S. V. Tekade pressurized them to abandon the claim against post of Headmaster.

3. There was a dispute between the appellants and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The husband- Sanjay Pohokar and wife-Sunita Mohod were not allowed to join their duty with effect from 31.08.1999 and 30.07.1999 respectively. They challenged their termination before the School Tribunal, Amravati. The School Tribunal set aside their termination and thereafter, they joined their duty.

4. It is the case of the appellants that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have obtained their signatures on blank papers to be used for drafting their resignation letters etc. in future. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had also obtained the signatures of the other employees of the school on the blank papers. The appellants were shocked to receive the communication dated 29.04.2000 informing them that their resignation letters were received and accepted. According to them, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 misused the blank signed papers. They never sent any resignation to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The order dated 29.04.2000 relieving them from the service is illegal and bad in law. The appellants had an apprehension that the blank papers with their signatures would be misused and therefore, they made complaints to the various authorities. According to them they never resigned from the service. These blank papers with their signatures have been misused by the Management of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for typing their resignation letters. On these averments, they prayed for declaration.

5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply and opposed the case of the appellants. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in some and substance denied the material facts pleaded by the appellants. It is denied that they were terminated in the year 1999. According to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the appellants on their own remained absent from duties. On receipt of the orders from the School Tribunal, Amravati they were allowed to join their duties. It is further contended that the appellant-husband for some time worked as Headmaster, however, he abandoned his claim in writing.

6. According to the respondents, the appellants forwarded their resignation letters to the respondents by registered post acknowledgment due. On receipt of the resignation letters, duly signed by th