A voluntary resignation of a teacher falls within the ambit of the expression "otherwise terminated" occurring in Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and prior approval is required before a private school can terminate the services of a teacher.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. These two writ appeals concern the controversy between a private school, of which the first-respondent is the correspondent-Secretary, and its Headmaster the appellant herein, who has been sent out of service. The statute that will govern the controversy is the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974). hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

The facts require delineation as follows:

On 9th April 1976, the Headmaster wrote a letter as follows:

THE LAKSHMI MILLS HIGH SCHOOL

R. Jesudasan, B.A., B.T.,

Headmaster

Kovilpatti, Dated: 9.4.76.

To

The Correspondent, Lakshmi Mills High School, Kovilpatti.

Respected Sir,

Due to my family inconvenience, I am unable to continue here as Headmaster and I resign. Hence I request you to kindly relieve me at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

(Sd.) R. Jesudasan 9.4.1976

On the very same date, he wrote another letter, which ran as follows:

THE LAKSHMI MILLS HIGH SCHOOL

R. Jesudesan,B.A.,B.T.,

Headmaster,

Kovilpatti, Dated:

9.4.1976.

To.

The Correspondent,

Lakshmi Mills High School,

Kovilpatti.

Respected Sir,

Due to my family inconvenience I am unable to continue in the School as a Headmaster. Hence, I request you to kindly relieve me at earliest convenience. Thanking you, Yours faithfully,

(Sd.) R. Jesudasan, 9.4.1976.

On 10th April 1976, the resignation of the Headmaster was accepted by the private school and the Headmaster was relieved from duty. On 10th May 1976, the Headmaster preferred a complaint to the second-respondent, complaining that the letters of resignation were obtained from him under duress and threat and prayed for an order, directing his reinstatement. On 30th August 1977. the second-respondent, opining that, since the Headmaster tendered resignation and the same has been accepted by the private school, no appeal would lie, did not entertain the same and go into the merits of the case. The Headmaster appealed to the third-respondent in C.M.A. No. 75 of 1977 and the third-respondent, by order dated 27th June 1978, expressed the view that the appeal is maintainable before the second-respondent, since a case of a teacher, going out of service on resignation would also come within the set of expressions 'otherwise terminated', occurring in Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, and remitted the matter back to the second-respondent for consideration of the merits of the case. The third-respondent, for arriving at this view, took note of the pronouncement of V. Balasubra-manyam, J., in K. Rajeswari v. T.P. Sankaran and Anr. S.A. No. 1607 of 1974, Judgment dated 25th November 1977 -concisely reported in 1977 TLNJ 537). The second respondent, pursuant to the above order of remand, went into the merits of the case and held that the Headmaster tendered his resignation voluntarily and the letters of resignation were not obtained from him under duress and in this view rejected the appeal of the Headmaster. The second-respondent also repelled the contention of the Headmaster that a prior approval, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act, is required, on the reasoning that in the case of voluntary resignation the question of prior approval does not arise. The Headmaster preferred C.M.A. No. 66 of 1980 to the third-respondent. The third-respondent, on the question of the letters of resignation being taken from the Headmaster by exercise of threat or coercion, rendered a finding against the Headmaster. However, on the question of prior approval, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act, the third-respondent held that even a case of a teacher going out of service on his own resignation would come within the set of expressions 'otherwise terminated', found in Section 22 of the Act, allowed the appeal of the Headmaster, setting aside the order of the second-respondent and consequently setting aside the order of termination, passed by the first-respondent, and gave the Headmaster the relief of reinstatement. The third-responden