Meaning of the expression otherwise terminated occurring in Setion 22(1).

S. Mohan, J.

1. W.P. No. 5757 of 1981--Both these writ petitions can be dealt with under a common order. The facts leading to the writ petitions are as under: The first respondent in W.P. No. 5757 of 1981, is the petitioner in W.P. No. 10245 of 1981. He was appointed permanently as Headmaster in the school of the petitioner in W.P. No. 5757 of 1981, who is also the first respondent in W.P No. 10245 of 1981, respondents 2 and 3 are the same in both the petitions.

2. An agreement was entered into between the school and the first respondent on 25th July, 1973. The first respondent, by his letter, dated 9th April, 1976, tendered his resignation. On 10th April, 1976, the resignation was accepted and he was relieved from the post on the same day. The Secretary of the School made an endorsement on 9th April, 1976, in the resignation letter stating 'Resignation accepted'. Thereafter the first respondent wrote a letter to the Director of School Educations of which the petitioner was not aware. The Director, by an order, dated 30th August, 1977, held that since the first respondent ha d resigned his post and his resignation was accepted on 10th April, 1976, no appeal would lie. Aggrieved by this order the first respondent preferred an appeal to third respondent Tribunal in C.M.A No. 75 of l977. The Tribunal held that an appeal would lie and remitted the matter to the Director of School Education for a decision as to whether the resignation was tendered voluntarily or not. This order is dated 27th June, 1978. On receipt of this order the Director of School Education moved the third respondent Tribunal in I.A. No. 7l8 of 1979 requesting, that the matter maybe remitted to Joint Director of School Education. But that application was rejected. Thereupon, the second respondent, after conducting an enquiry passed an order, dated 16th July, 1980 rejecting the appeal of the first respondent holding that the resignation by the first respondent was voluntary and was not brought about by coercion, as stated by him. Under these circumstances the question of obtaining prior approval under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act of 1973(XXIX of 1974) hereinafter referred to as the Act, does not at all arise, since the first respondent has tendered his resignation voluntarily and the Management had relieved him from service only as per. the specific request of the first respondent.

3. Against this order an appeal was filed in CM.A. No. 66 of 1980 to the third respondent. The third respondent allowed the appeal holding that the resignation no doubt was voluntary, nevertheless it would amount to termination of service and, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the writ petitioner school to obtain the prior approval of the competent authority under Section 22 of the Act. It is under these circumstances, that the petitioner school has filed the writ petition to quash the order, dated 17th March, 1981 in C.M.A. No. 66 of 1980.

4. W.P. No. 10245 of 1981. - This has been; preferred by the Headmaster (the first respondent in W.P. No. 5757 of 1981) to quash the finding of the third respondent Tribunal that his resignation was voluntary.

5. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in W.P. No. 5757 of 1981, for the purpose of convenience.

6. Mr. M.R. Narayanaswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner (school) submits that the finding of the Tribunal that prior approval of the competent authority ought to have been obtained under Section 22 of the Act is clearly wrong. The obtaining of the prior approval would be necessary only in a case where the termination of service is brought about by an act of the management. In the instant case, in so far as it is not the management which put an end to the services of the Headmaster, but the Headmaster (the first respondent) tendered his resignation which came to be accepted it is not termination. Section 22, in such a case, is wholly inapplicable. The Tribunal relied upon the ruling of t