Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
RAJU RANJAN — Appellant
Vs.
CHAIRMAN, ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY — Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 3334 of 2017
Decided on : 15-03-2018
RESIGNATION - WITHDRAWAL - ACCEPTANCE - VALIDITY - ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION - PROBATION - REGULAR APPOINTMENT - INQUIRY REPORT - REINSTATEMENT - CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS: 1. A resignation can be withdrawn before it takes effect. 2. Acceptance of resignation after withdrawal is invalid. 3. Army Public School is amenable to writ jurisdiction. 4. Probationary status is irrelevant when resignation is accepted due to withdrawal. 5. Regular appointment granted in the fourth academic year of joining is valid. 6. Inquiry report without subsequent action is inconsequential for resignation acceptance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a PGT CS at Army Public School, resigned on 24.01.2017, effective from 31.03.2017. The next day, he withdrew the resignation. The school accepted the resignation on 10.03.2017, effective from 14.03.2017. The petitioner challenged this decision in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
1. The petitioner's resignation was withdrawn before it was accepted, rendering the acceptance invalid. 2. The Army Public School is amenable to writ jurisdiction. 3. The petitioner's probationary status is irrelevant to the acceptance of his resignation after withdrawal. 4. The petitioner was granted regular appointment in the fourth academic year of joining, which is valid. 5. The inquiry report against the petitioner is inconsequential since no action was taken based on it.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's resignation was validly withdrawn before acceptance. 2. Whether the Army Public School is amenable to writ jurisdiction. 3. Whether the petitioner's probationary status affects the acceptance of his resignation after withdrawal. 4. Whether the petitioner's regular appointment was validly granted. 5. Whether the inquiry report against the petitioner is relevant to the acceptance of his resignation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An employee is entitled to withdraw a resignation before it takes effect. 2. Army Public Schools are amenable to writ jurisdiction. 3. Probationary status is irrelevant when resignation is accepted after withdrawal. 4. Regular appointment granted in the fourth academic year of joining is valid. 5. An inquiry report without subsequent action is inconsequential for resignation acceptance.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed. The order accepting the petitioner's resignation was quashed, and he was reinstated with all consequential benefits.
Arun Bhansali, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure-5), whereby, the resignation of the petitioner from the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Computer Science) ('PGT CS') has been accepted and the petitioner has been relieved w.e.f. 14.03.2017. A further direction has been sought to consider the petitioner for permanent appointment on the post of PGT.
2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner has a degree of M.C.A. acquired by him in the year 2010; petitioner applied pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2012 and was selected as PGT in Computer Science on ad hoc/temporary basis and served from 02.07.2012 to 31.03.2013, 08.04.2013 to 24.12.2013, 06.01.2014 to 31.03.2014, 08.04.2014 to 24.12.2014 and 05.01.2015 to 31.03.2015. Experience certificates in this regard have been filed as Annexurexs-1 & 2.
3. Whereafter by order dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-3) the petitioner was appointed as PGT CS on regular basis. It was, inter alia, indicated in the letter of appointment that initially the petitioner would be on probation for a period of one year, which may be extended further for another one year by the appointing authority. Whereafter by order dated 16.03.2016 the probation period of the petitioner was extended for another year w.e.f. 08.04.2016 till 07.04.2017.
4. It is claimed in the writ petition that on account of certain incidence, whereby, the petitioner was humiliated and was forced to arrange a computer or to resign from the post, the petitioner resigned from the post of PGT CS on 24.01.2017 (part of Annexure-R/1) and indicated that last date of employment will be 31.03.2017. Where after the said letter of resignation was withdrawn on the next day i.e 25.01.2017 (part of Annexure-R/1). It is then indicated in the writ petition that several untoward incidences happened in the School, regarding which, the petitioner made complaints and an inquiry was instituted with respondent No. 2 - the Principal of the School as Member, which was objected to by the petitioner. However, on 14.03.2017 the petitioner received an email indicating acceptance of his resignation alongwith one month's advance salary and security deposit. It is also indicted that security deposit will be credited in his bank account. On receiving the letter accepting the resignation of the petitioner (Annexure-5), the petitioner got issued a notice dated 11.03.2017 from his counsel.
5. It is, inter alia, indicated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in accepting resignation of the petitioner, which resignation was withdrawn on the next date of tendering, is absolutely illegal and against settled legal position and, therefore, the order impugned (Annexure-5) deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. It was submitted that when admittedly the petitioner had resigned from his post by letter dated 24.01.2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and immediately on the next day i.e. 25.01.2017 the resignation letter was withdrawn, which was admittedly received by the respondents on the same day, there was no occasion for the respondents to accept the resignation on 10.03.2017 and relieve the petitioner w.e.f. 14.03.2017.
7. Submissions were also made that the practice of the respondents in granting ad hoc appointments with 8 to 10 days' gap in between and granting regular appointment after serving for almost 3 years, is ex facie illegal and contrary to several judgments delivered in the case of respondent institution itself and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard also deserves to be quashed and set aside and services of the petitioner deserve to be regularized from 02.07.2012 itself with all consequential benefits.
8. Reliance was placed on judgments of Delhi High Court in Vandana Rana v. Directorate of Education & Ors. : W.P.(C) 5757/2016, decided on 02.02.2017, Anita Soharu Guleria v. Director of Education & Ors. : W.P.(C) No. 1845/20
AI
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
