Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Anu Joseph – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) No. 21388 of 2019
Decided on : 10-07-2023
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders accepting her resignation as an LPSA teacher and sought permission to continue employment.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had expressed her intention to withdraw her resignation before its acceptance, rendering the rejection of her claim unsustainable.Issues:
Validity of petitioner's resignation and its acceptance; compliance with Rules 48 and 53 of Chapter XIVA KER.Ratio Decidendi:
A resignation only takes effect upon approval by educational authorities; withdrawal of resignation before acceptance is permissible.Final Decision:
The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the government for reconsideration in accordance with law.JUDGMENT :
The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P13 and P15 orders and for a further
direction to respondents 1 to 5 to permit the petitioner to continue as LPSA without any interruption with effect from 01.06.2017 with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner was working as LPSA in the school under the management of 4th respondent corporate educational agency. She was a nun attached to the Congregation of the Mother of Carmel (CMC). Due to personal reasons, she requested to dispense her from religious vows and obligations and her request was accepted by the church authorities as is evident from Ext.P1 Rescript dated 07.06.2017. Petitioner who was fully qualified, was appointed as LPSA as per Ext.P2 order of appointment dated 01.06.2015 and the same was duly approved by the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer as per order dated 09.01.2017. It is the contention of the petitioner that her salary and allowances were being collected by the 4th respondent and the petitioner was unaware about the salary and allowances being paid into the account created in her name. A perusal of Ext.P3 duplicate pass book issued by the Agaly branch of the State Bank of India reveals that huge amounts were collected by the 4th respondent from her account and no amount was given to her. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 used to obtain signature of the petitioner on blank cheque leaves and thus misappropriated all the amounts in her account. When the petitioner requested for dispensing her from the religious vows and obligations, the church authorities including the 4th respondent raised stiff resistance and when the petitioner persisted with her request, they exerted undue pressure and influence on her so as to coerce her in submitting a resignation letter. Petitioner had no other way but to sign the resignation letter dated 27.04.2017 as directed by them. Petitioner was also made to believe that her appointment did not have the approval of the department as she was not a K-TET qualified candidate and that another qualified teacher ought to be appointed in the school. Petitioner submits that the said resignation letter has been obtained under pressure and threat and by mis-representation of facts. Petitioner also submits that she never intended to resign from service and she was ready and willing to work as a teacher. Petitioner submits that till her resignation is accepted by the departmental authorities, she has every right to withdraw from the same. To substantiate the same, petitioner relies on Rules 48 and 53 of Chapter XIVA KER which specifically mandates among other things that a teacher shall not himself terminate his service before the expiry of the term of his appointment without the permission of the educational authorities. Petitioner submits that the said legal position has been settled by the judgment of this Court in Hyderali v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 763), Moideenkutty Haji v. State (1981 KHC 473) and Ushakumari V.S. v. State of Kerala and others (2019 KHC 2805). By Ext.P5 letter, the 4th respondent informed the 3rd respondent that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 resignation letter and that the 4th respondent had accepted the same and therefore requested for permission to make a fresh appointment. The 3rd respondent by Ext.P6 letter informed the petitioner and the 4th respondent that he propose to conduct a hearing on the issue of the alleged resignation of the petitioner. The 4th respondent Manager did not turn up for the hearing but deputed a representative. The petitioner attended the meeting and submitted Ext.P8 representation in which she explained the circumstances under which she was forced to submit Ext.P4 letter of resignation and requested to take necessary steps so as to enable her to continue with the employment. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P9 letter to the 4th respondent calling for her explanation with regard to the submission made by the petitioner t
The validity of a teacher's resignation must be confirmed to ensure it is voluntary, reaffirming the obligation of educational authorities to verify resignation circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant can withdraw their resignation before its acceptance, as provided under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants R....
A resignation is invalid if not given with the stipulated notice under applicable rules, especially when submitted under acute mental distress.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a teacher's resignation should be made voluntarily, and if the employee withdraws such resignation, it is duly entitled to do so.
The mandatory nature of Sec. 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the burden on the management to demonstrate the voluntary nature of a ....
Non-communication of acceptance of resignation does not invalidate the resignation, and the resignation becomes effective on its acceptance, even if the acceptance is not communicated, as long as the....
The mandatory nature of statutory provisions, such as Section 7 and Rule 40, must be upheld, and the burden of demonstrating the voluntary nature of a resignation lies with the management.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
