Supreme Court affirms school's acceptance of teacher resignation, rejects withdrawal claim.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the resignation acceptance by the appellant school and rejected the claim of withdrawal by the first respondent, a Sanskrit teacher. The Court found that the resignation was validly accepted within the statutory period, and the alleged withdrawal was not substantiated. The Court noted that the acceptance of resignation complied with statutory provisions and departmental instructions, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and allowing the appeal with no costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the acceptance of resignation.
2. Validity of the withdrawal of resignation.
3. Compliance with statutory provisions and departmental instructions.

Summary:

1. Legality of the acceptance of resignation:
The appellant school, governed u/s 114A of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, accepted the resignation of the first respondent, a Sanskrit teacher, on 19.03.1997. The acceptance was subject to the approval of the Director of Education. As no approval was received within 30 days, it was deemed to have been received. The resignation was communicated to the first respondent on 13.05.1997, effective from 17.06.1997.

2. Validity of the withdrawal of resignation:
The first respondent claimed to have withdrawn his resignation on 18.03.1997, which the appellant school denied receiving. The High Court's Single Judge found that the purported withdrawal letter was never received by the school, and the entry in the dispatch register related to another correspondence. The Division Bench, however, allowed the first respondent's appeal, stating he could withdraw his resignation before 17.06.1997. The Supreme Court held that the resignation was validly accepted within the statutory period, and the first respondent's claim of withdrawal was not substantiated.

3. Compliance with statutory provisions and departmental instructions:
The acceptance of resignation was governed by the statutory provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The Supreme Court noted that the Managing Committee's acceptance of the resignation was within the legal framework, and the Director of Education's approval was deemed granted after 30 days. The departmental instruction dated 17.10.1996, cited by the respondents, was deemed not relevant to the case as it pertained to the internal rules of the school and did not nullify the resolution passed by circulation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, upholding the validity of the resignation acceptance and rejecting the claim of withdrawal by the first respondent. The appeal was allowed with no costs.

---