Sejalben Hemantkumar Patel vs State of Gujarat & 3 other

This Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the original petitioner in Special Civil Application No.13998 of 2013, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 03.05.2016.

The Special Civil Application was filed with the prayers which read as under: "19(a) Be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.

(b) Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing an appropriate writ order or directions, directing the respondent no.3 & 4 to reinstate the petitioner on her post of pre-primary teacher with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

(c) Be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent no.3 & 4 to reinstate the petitioner on her post of pre-primary teacher with all consequential benefits, with immediate effect, by way of an interim relief in favour of petitioner and against the respondents during pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the above Special Civil Application the interest of justice."

The appellant-petitioner was working as teacher in respondent no.4-school and she was selected as such after regular process of selection on 12.06.1997. She had tendered resignation on 30.05.2008. Subsequently, on 10.06.2008 she had submitted representation withdrawing her resignation. On receipt of such representation, on 12.06.2008, the Chairman of respondent no.4- school had informed the petitioner that it was not possible to accept her request for withdrawal as the resignation was already accepted; such acceptance of resignation was also approved in the meeting held on 20.09.2008.

In the year 2013, Special Civil Application was filed seeking directions to respondents no.3 and 4 to reinstate the appellant petitioner into service mainly on the ground that as she has withdrawn her resignation, she is entitled for such relief of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge by oral judgment dated 03.05.2016 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner mainly on the ground that having resigned in the year 2008, the appellant-petitioner filed the Special Civil Application in the year 2013 and there was no valid explanation offered explaining the inordinate delay of five years in approaching this Court.

In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that acceptance of resignation by the respondents is not in accordance with the provisions of sections 40C and 40E of Gujarat Primary Education Act, 1947. So far as the delay is concerned it is submitted by the learned counsel that as the appellant-petitioner had no other remedy under the provisions of the Act referred to above, as such she was making representations to the respondents requesting them to reinstate her. It is submitted that when the respondents have not considered such representations, ultimately, the appellant-petitioner had to approach this Court in the year 2013; as such it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay and laches on the part of the appellant-petitioner. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 158.

From the reply to the petition filed by respondents no.3 and 4, which is placed on record it is evident that it is the specific stand of the respondent-management that after resignation was tendered by the appellant-petitioner on 30.05.2008, the same was accepted with effect from 01.06.2008. When the appellant-petitioner has submitted representation requesting for withdrawal of her resignation vide letter dated 10.06.2008, the Chairman of the institution has also addressed letter dated 12.06.2008 informing the appellant-petitioner that her request for withdrawal cannot be accepted as much as her resignation was accepted. Letter dated 12.06.2008 was addressed in this regard by the management. It is true that procedure is prescribed for the purpose of resignation under sections 40C and 40E of Gujarat Primary Education Act, 1947, but having violated such provisions for making resignation without giving prior notice, it is not open for the appellant-petitioner to take such violation for her own benefit at this stage.

Moreover, we are also not convinced with the explanation offered by the appellant-petitioner to explain the delay of about five years in approaching this Court, after resignation was tendered in the month of May 2008. It is fairly well settled now, that the resignation can be withdrawn only before acceptance of resignation by the management. It is clear from the material placed on record that by the time the appellant-petitioner had addressed letter for withdrawal of her resignation, the same was accepted by the management. Even assuming that the resignation was not tendered in accordance with sections 40C and 40E of the said Act, in absence of any valid explanation explaining the delay of five years, we are of the view that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge so as to interfere with the judgment under challenge.

Further, we are of the view that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 158 (supra) would not render any support in the case of plea of the appellant-petitioner. In the aforesaid judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court it was held that after tendering resignation withdrawal is also a right. There cannot be any dispute with said proposition. But in this case having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment referred to above would not render any assistance in support of the case of the appellant-petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 03.05.2016, we are of the view that the Letters Patent Appeal has no merit.

Accordingly, the Letters patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. Letters patent appeal dismissed.