In the recent case of Nand Kishor v. The Managing Committee of Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, the legal nuances surrounding resignation withdrawal in educational institutions were discussed, specifically in relation to the provisions of Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (DSE Rules). The appeal, which challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.20218-19/2004, highlights important legal principles that govern the acceptance and withdrawal of resignation in the context of school employment.
Background of the Case:
The appellant, Nand Kishor, had served as the Head Clerk at Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya since 2001. He tendered his resignation on 15th March 2003, citing personal reasons. However, the resignation was submitted under duress, according to the appellant, who later withdrew it on 7th July 2003. Despite this withdrawal, the Directorate of Education (DoE) refused to approve the resignation in December 2004, asserting that the resignation had not been processed according to the prescribed rules.
The respondent, the school management, contested the refusal to approve the resignation, arguing that the resignation had been voluntarily given and accepted by the managing committee. Moreover, the school emphasized that the approval of the resignation, as required under Rule 114A, had been implicitly granted as the Director had not responded within the stipulated 30-day period following the school’s communication in May 2003.
Key Issues for Consideration:
The crux of the issue was whether the resignation, once accepted by the Managing Committee, could be withdrawn by the appellant after a significant delay and in the face of regulatory approval processes outlined in the DSE Rules. Specifically, Rule 114A requires that any resignation from a private recognized school must be submitted with prior approval from the Director of Education. The regulation also contains a provision stating that if approval is not received within 30 days of submission, the approval will be deemed to have been granted.
Appellant’s Arguments:
The appellant, appearing in person, argued that the resignation was not voluntary, but was tendered under duress. He highlighted that the resignation was not properly processed, as the school had failed to seek the necessary approval from the Director within the prescribed 30-day period. Furthermore, he contended that the failure to adhere to Rule 114A rendered the resignation ineffective and that the resignation, once withdrawn on 7th July 2003, should not have been accepted.
The appellant also challenged the reliance on previous case law, such as Smt. Lovika Jain v. Delhi Public School and Modern School v. Shashi Pal Sharma, asserting that the legal principles enunciated in these cases were misapplied by the learned Single Judge.
Respondent’s Arguments:
On the other hand, the respondent school’s legal counsel maintained that all required procedures were followed. The resignation was accepted by the Managing Committee on 29th March 2003, and the appellant had been notified of the decision and asked to continue working until 30th June 2003. They emphasized that the request for approval was duly sent to the Director of Education, and since no response was received within the 30-day period, the resignation should be considered automatically approved under the provisions of Rule 114A.
The respondent further argued that the resignation could not be withdrawn unilaterally after the Managing Committee had formally accepted it, and that the appellant's subsequent claims of duress were an afterthought.
Court's Analysis:
The court, while evaluating the case, underscored several key aspects of resignation procedures under Rule 114A. Firstly, the resignation letter submitted by the appellant was unconditionally expressed, and it was formally accepted by the school’s managing committee on 29th March 2003. At that point, the resignation was final and binding. Following the acceptance, the school took the necessary steps to inform the Director of Education about the resignation and to request permission to advertise for the vacant position.
The appellant’s claim of withdrawing the resignation on 7th July 2003 was seen as untimely and inconsistent with the legal process. The court held that since no communication had been received from the Director of Education within 30 days of the school’s request in May 2003, the resignation was deemed to have been approved as per Rule 114A. Therefore, the appellant’s attempt to withdraw the resignation after this period was deemed invalid.
Conclusion:
The court’s judgment reinforces the principle that once a resignation is accepted by the managing committee of a school, it becomes final and cannot be withdrawn unilaterally, especially when statutory processes have been followed. The case also highlights the importance of adhering to the regulatory requirements outlined in the DSE Rules and the limited scope for contesting decisions related to resignation once the necessary
procedures are completed.
In light of these factors, the intra-court appeal filed by Nand Kishor was dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld. The court emphasized that the appellant’s resignation, once accepted, could not be rescinded, and the failure of the Directorate of Education to act within 30 days rendered the resignation effective.
This case serves as a reminder of the binding nature of formal resignation procedures in educational institutions, and the critical role of statutory compliance in managing employment matters within such institutions.
