SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 3906

High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. KIRUBAKARAN
Stella Mary
Versus
The Joint Director of Elementary Education, (Higher Secondary) & Others
W.P.No.13690 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 13-09-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. S. Mani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2 - P. Karthikeyan, Govt. Advocate (Education), R3 - B. Ravi, Advocate.

Coerced resignation is not valid, and refusal of approval means the resignation does not come into effect.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Resignation - Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 - Rule 17(A)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought Mandamus to rejoin as B.T. Assistant, alleging coercion in her resignation. The third respondent refused to allow her to rejoin after her resignation was not approved by the second respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the resignation was obtained under pressure and not voluntarily tendered, and therefore, not valid. The refusal of approval by the second respondent meant the resignation did not come into effect, and the petitioner was deemed to be in service.

Issues: Coercion in resignation, refusal of approval, denial of rejoining duty

Ratio Decidendi: The resignation obtained under pressure was not valid, and the refusal of approval meant the petitioner was still in service.

Final Decision: The Writ of Mandamus was allowed, directing the third respondent to allow the petitioner to rejoin duty within a week.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner who alleged to have resigned from the post as B.T. Assistant from the third respondent/G.M.R.C. Middle School has come before this Court seeking Mandamus directing the third respondent to allow her to rejoin the duty as B.T. Assistant.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as B.T. Assistant in the third respondent school on 23.03.2009 and her appointment was approved on 21.12.2009. It is, however, due to pressure given by the third respondent, the resignation letter was given by the petitioner on 16.08.2010. The said resignation letter was sent by the third respondent for approval from the second respondent / The District Elementary Educational Officer, who on 08.12.2010 refused to accord approval for the resignation. Even after non granting of approval, the third respondent refused to allow the petitioner to rejoin the duty. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. Mr.Chella Pandiyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not tender the resignation voluntarily and it was obtained by coercion by the third respondent. There is no necessity for the petitioner to resign from the post. After obtaining the resignation letter from the petitioner, it was sent for approval which was rightly refused by the second respondent for non-compliance of Rule 17(A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974. Therefore, the petitioner prays for Mandamus. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this court, in S. Soundararajan Vs. The Director of School Education, Madras and another) reported in 1996(I) CTC 275, another judgment in W.A.No.1129 of 1995 and Anwarul Islam Aided Primary School Vs. M. Dilshad Begum and unreported judgment in W.A.No.304 of 2001 and another judgment in A. Imam Hussain Vs. The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) and another in W.P.No.8762 of 2005.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent strenuously contended that there is no question of obtaining resignation letter highhandedly from the petitioner. Secondly, if the resignation letter is obtained forcibly, the petitioner should have revoked the resignation letter and in the absence of that the resignation letter is valid. Thirdly, he submitted that it is for the Educational Agency to accept the resignation letter and only relieving of the petitioner alone is to be approved by the second respondent. The third respondent as Educational Agency immediately accepted the resignation letter and the resignation came in to force. He relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Grama Committee High School, Rep. by its Secretary Vs. I. Arunachalam and another reported in 100 L.W, Part 18, Page 543.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner concealed the material facts and she is guilt of material alteration with regard to the resignation letter. Therefore, the petitioner could not be given the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the approval was rejected without even hearing the third respondent and therefore, the non approval order is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

6. Heard the parties and perused the records.

7. According to the petitioner, the resignation letter was obtained on 16.10.2010. If any resignation has been obtained or tendered by the concerned teacher, it has to be approved by the second respondent as per Rule 17(A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974, which is extracted as follows:-

17-A. Educational agencies not to obtain compulsorily resignation letter either at the time of appointment or subsequently from the employees in their school:-

(1) whenever a teacher or other person employed in a private school, tenders his resignation of appointment he shall inform the fact of his resignation in writing b












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top