No reappreciation of evidence by High Court.

K.A.Swami, C.J.

At the stage of admission 1st respondent who is the contesting respondent, has entered caveat. Respondents 2 and 3 are the statutory authorities. Learned Government Pleader to appear for them.

2. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.

3. Learned single judge has interfered with the orders of respondents 2 and 3 accepting the resignation submitted by the 1st respondent as Headmaster of the School in question.

4. The 1st respondent submitted the resignation on 10. 1994 to be effective from 394. The School Committee considered the resignation and accepted the same and forwarded it to the Chief Educational Officer, who is the authority for approval. The Chief Educational Officer by the order dated 16. 1995 after notice to the 1st respondent, inquired into the matter and found that the 1st respondent had submitted the resignation and it was written and signed by the 1st respondent himself without any coercion.

5. In the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent, the Joint Director of Schools by the order dated 111. 1995 has affirmed the same.

6. Thus, there is a finding of fact recorded by the two statutory authorities that the 1st respondent had tendered the resignation voluntarily and had admitted that he had tendered it voluntarily. The Management also has accepted the same. In fact, the proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd respondents would go to show that the 1st respondent was questioned during the proceedings and he admitted the submission of the resignation. We fail to understand, if at all, there was any compulsion or coercion on the part of the management to the 1st respondent to tender resignation, nothing prevented the 1st respondent to withdraw the resignation, because it was to take effect from 312. 1994. The fact that he did not move his finger till the acceptance of the resignation that he had either not submitted the resignation or tried to withdraw it, would also go to show that the resignation was tendered voluntarily.

7. However, learned single judge has gone into the facts and has observed thus:

“The petitioner has given the resignation thereafter. His argument is also untenable. If the resignation was given on 10. 1994 as contended, it would have certainly found a place in the resolution of the committee meeting particularly so when the correspondent and President of the third respondent School were present in the said meeting. Thus, viewed from any angle, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner tendered his resignation voluntarily. On the other hand, he has been agitating right from 18. 1994 that the resignation was taken from him under compulsion. Having regard to the contravention of Rule 17-A (1), (4) and (6) also, it cannot be accepted that the resignation given by the petitioner was voluntary and it could be accepted. The Educational Authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction in holding an enquiry instead of just taking confirmation from the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 17-A(4). Further having heard to the decision on the case of Grama Committee High School represented by its Secretary v. I.Arunachalam and another, 100 L. W. 543 in my view, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, Paragraphs 16,20 and 21 of the said Judgment read thus:

”It is only to govern such voluntary resignations, R- 17-A was introduced by G.O.Ms.586, dated 2nd April, 1981. The necessity for framing a specific rule was brought about by the unscrupulous tactics adopted by several educational agencies in obtaining undated resignation letters from teachers even at the time of appointment or predated letters of resignation from them by force and making use of them whenever they like. When such instances came to light, in multitude, the Government thought fit to frame R- 17-A in order to explode the camouflage adopted by the educational agencies for terminating the services of innocent and gullible teachers under the garb of resignation letters which