Rani Muniraj vs The Inspector of Matriculation Schools and The Principal, N.S.N. Matriculation Higher Secondary School

A.K. Rajan, J.—The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any

manner terminating or discontinuing the petitioner''s services from the post of Mathematics Assistant in the second respondent School.

The facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition is that the petitioner is the Mathematics teacher working in the second

respondent school; she has put up 21 years of service in that school; she worked without any complaint during the entire period and to the utmost

satisfaction of her superiors; that due to poor health condition, she gave her resignation letter on 12.03.2001 requesting the school authority to

relieve her with effect from the end of academic year i.e., from 31.05.2001. Subsequently, since her health condition improved, her doctor gave

fitness certificate that her health condition is improved and hence, she gave a letter on 30.03.2001 requesting the second respondent to withdraw

her resignation and the letter was acknowledged by the second respondent. Thereafter she was allowed to work till 31st May, 2001. On

01.06.2001, when she went to work, the second respondent refused to assign her any work and she was informed that they are acting on the basis

of her resignation letter dated 12.03.2001. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition.

The second respondent has filed the counter affidavit stating that due to ill-health, for the past two years, the petitioner was unable to devote

proper time and attend to the teaching work. Further, she was teaching Mathematics to X standard and it is in the month of March which is crucial

period to appear for Public Examination, though the petitioner was also aware of the fact that consequent to her resignation, in the month of

March, 2001, another teacher was posted in her place. It is also stated that the resignation of the petitioner was also accepted and the petitioner is

also aware that the new teacher was appointed in her place in order to handle the 10th standard students and the petitioner has enjoyed the

benefits of the total holiday during the month of May, 2001. Further the respondents have been receiving sporadical complaints from the students

and she was found wanting because of her ill-health. Since another teacher had been already appointed for taking X Standard Mathematics, the

petitioner cannot be accommodated and further the second respondent has denied the statement that the school refused to assign work to the

petitioner and in fact, the petitioner was not in a position to take classes. Further, it is stated that the question of passing a termination order did not

arise since the petitioner herself had resigned, and it was not the respondent who terminated the services of the petitioner and it is not clear as to

what is the grievance of the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed his reply affidavit stating that no teacher was taken between 12.03.2001 to 30.03.2001.

Heard both sides.

At the time of admission of the writ petition, this Court granted interim injunction in W.M.P. No. 16375 of 2001, restraining the respondents

from discontinuing the petitioner''s services from the post of Mathematics Assistant in the second respondent school. Subsequently the respondents

filed W.M.P. No. 19404 of 2001 to vacate the interim injunction granted by this Court. This Court has passed the following in the vacate interim

injunction application:

... However, the grant of interim injunction shall not in any way prevent the second respondent-Management from taking any disciplinary action in

the event of the petitioner providing any scope by committing any misconduct in the course of discharge of his duties.

Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that letter of resignation given by the petitioner on 12.03.2003

has been withdrawn on 31.03.2001 and before that, the letter of resignation has not been accepted and in her place no new teacher was appointed

in that period. Therefore, the petitioner has the right to continue in the employment; the respondent has not terminated her services; but refused to

assign her any work. Learned counsel further submitted that unless the resignation is accepted, the service of the petitioner will not come to an end.

To substantiate his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra and

Others, wherein it is held that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it comes to effect. 8. In this case, the resignation letter

had not been accepted. Though there is an averment to that effect. There is no material available on record to prove that. Further, it is stated in the

counter that the respondent did not refuse to assign work. In the circumstances, it is clear that the letter of resignation has not been accepted till the

date when she gave a letter withdrawing her resignation. A prospective resignation can be withdrawn on any day before it was accepted. The

petitioner had withdrawn her resignation before it was accepted. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. However, it is made clear that if the respondents are of the view that the petitioner is unable to

perform her duties due to illness, the second respondent has to take necessary orders as per law.