The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the resignation of a teacher would come into effect only when approved by the educational authority, and the teacher has the right to withdraw the resignation before approval. The court emphasized the importance of the previous approval of the Educational Officer for relief, discharge, or resignation of a teacher, as mandated by the Kerala Education Rules.

Headnote:
resignation - withdrawal of resignation - Kerala Education Rules, Chapter XIV-A, Rule 48, Rule 53 - The court examined the legal provisions in the Kerala Education Rules and held that no teacher shall be relieved, discharged, or resign before the expiry of the term of appointment without the previous approval of the Educational Officer. The court interpreted the term 'teacher' to include all teachers, whether permanent, acting, temporary, or probationary. It emphasized that discharge, relief, and resignation would be effective only on approval of the educational authorities. The court also cited several Supreme Court decisions supporting the principle that resignation can be withdrawn before it is accepted and the jural relationship between the employer and employee comes to an end only when the relieving order is issued.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a teacher, Ditto, who tendered his resignation but later withdrew it before it was accepted by the educational authority. The school manager accepted the resignation, but the Assistant Educational Officer approved it later. Another teacher, the appellant, was concerned that if Ditto was allowed to rejoin after withdrawing his resignation, he would lose his job. The appellant sought a writ of mandamus to prevent termination of his service.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the resignation of a teacher would come into effect only when approved by the educational authority. It held that the teacher had the right to withdraw the resignation before approval. The court upheld the Government Order and directed the reinstatement of Ditto with continuity of service and entitlement to all service benefits except salary for the period he was out of service.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the withdrawal of resignation by the teacher and its legal consequences. Another issue was the potential impact on the appellant's job if the teacher was allowed to rejoin after withdrawing the resignation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Kerala Education Rules, specifically Chapter XIV-A, Rule 48 and Rule 53, which required the previous approval of the Educational Officer for relief, discharge, or resignation of a teacher. The court also relied on various Supreme Court decisions supporting the principle that resignation can be withdrawn before it is accepted and the jural relationship between the employer and employee comes to an end only when the relieving order is issued.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the judgment of the learned single judge and upheld the Government Order, directing the reinstatement of the teacher, Ditto, with continuity of service and entitlement to all service benefits except salary for the period he was out of service.

Judgment :-

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Common question arises in these appeals. The question is when can a letter of resignation be validly withdrawn and what are the legal consequences flows from its withdrawal.

2. We deal with the facts as available in O.P. No. 16993 of 1999 against which W.A. No. 65 of 2001 was filed by the Manager. Fifth respondent, V.V. Ditto, was working as Assistant Teacher in the A.M.U.P. School, Vettom, Tirur. He was appointed as trained Graduate Teacher (U.P. school) on 5.8.1993 and his appointment was approved. He tendered a letter of resignation for personal reasons on 31.5.1996 before the Manager. Even though the letter of resignation bears the date 1.5.1996 it was actually submitted on 1.6.1996. Manager accepted the resignation on 1.6.1996 and forwarded the same on 3.6.1996 to the Assistant Educational Officer for approval. On 3.6.1996 Ditto applied for half pay leave for 13 days and casual leave for 10 days which was received by the Headmaster on 15.6.1996. On the same day he submitted a representation withdrawing his resignation as well. The Manager forwarded the letter of withdrawal of resignation also to the Assistant Educational Officer. On 25.7.1996 Ditto intimated the Assistant Educational Officer, Tirur of his withdrawal of resignation and sought a direction to the Headmaster to permit him to sign the attendance register and join duty. The Assistant Educational Officer did not accede to the said request and accepted the resignation on 2.11.1996.

3. Petitioner in O.P. No. 8400 of 2000 who is the appellant in W.A. No. 3364 of 2000 was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in the same school on 1.7.1998 in a retirement vacancy. That appointment was approved by the educational authorities. He is the junior-most teacher in the school. Apprehension of the teacher is that if Ditto is allowed to join duty after accepting his withdrawal of resignation he will be thrown out from the school. He therefore sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to terminate his service pursuant to Government Order dated 10.6.1999.

4. Against the order of the Assistant Educational Officer dated 2.11.1996 approving the letter of resignation with effect from 1.5.1996 the matter was taken up by Ditto before the District Educational Officer, Tirur who dismissed his appeal. Ditto took up the matter again before the Government and the Government vide order dated 10.6.1999 allowed the revision. While allowing the revision Government held as follows:

"Sri. Ditto has submitted an explanation letter to the A.E.O., Tirur. He has stated all the facts clearly in the letter. But the A.E.O has not properly considered and accepted the resignation on 2.11.1996. And the D.E.O. has relied on the findings of the A.E.O., Tirur. The action of the Headmaster/ Manager and the Department staff is gross violation of all principles of natural justice. Resignation is not complete until it is accepted by the proper authority and before such acceptance an employee can change his mind and withdraw the resignation. In this case, the petitioner has withdrawn his resignation before which is accepted by the concerned authorities i.e., the aeo, has accepted his resignation on 2.11.1996. Though the Manager is the appointing authority the approval of appointment and all other Monetary benefits to the teachers have been given by the Government, here the A.E.O. The hasty action of the Headmaster the Manager and the aeo shows that they have malafide intention to oust the petitioner from the school.

The petitioner has withdrawn his resignation before it is accepted by the competent authority and informed it to A.E.O. within the time and he has also applied for leave from 1.6.1996 to 16.6.1996. Even though all such actions are done by the petitioner, it is found that natural justice has not been taken into consideration, in the case of Sri. Ditto. The Revision Petition deserves consideration".

5. Counsel for the appellant Sri. T. Krishnanunni as wel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(Ker) 78

Cases Referred (1)