Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government, Education ... vs A.D. Selvaraj And The Correspondent, ... on 19 December, 2006
Author: F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
Bench: F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopathaya, J.
1. The first respondent-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') preferred the writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records and to set aside the order in Mu.Mu. No. 5248/3/2002 dated 30.9.2003 passed by the third respondent (3rd appellant herein) and to direct the respondents (appellants herein) to pass orders on voluntary retirement application as was submitted by the petitioner.
2. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 4.2.2005, having perused the application of the petitioner dated 31st of July, 2001, found that it was only a letter of resignation and not a letter for voluntary retirement. Hence, no relief was granted so far as the prayer for voluntary retirement is concerned. However, giving reference to Sub-rule 4 of Rule 17A of the TamilNadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, the learned single Judge declared the relieving of the petitioner from service from 31st of August, 2001 as illegal and thereby directed the respondents (appellants) to pay the petitioner salary attached to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher for the period from 1st September, 2001 to 30th September, 2003, i.e., upto the date when the request for resignation was approved.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner asked for resignation with effect from 31st August, 2001 and he was relieved by the school authorities with effect from 1st September, 2001. The petitioner neither questioned the relieving order nor the action of the school authorities in relieving him from service with effect from 1st September, 2001 without any order of the State. Such challenge not being made nor any statutory declaration being sought for by the petitioner, according to us, there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to decide whether the relieving order was illegal or not.
4. It may be evident from the impugned order of the third respondent (third appellant) in K. Dis. No. 5248/B3/2002 dated 30.9.2003 that the request of the petitioner was considered and his resignation was approved with effect from 31st of August, 2001, as was sought for, subject to the following conditions:
1. The teacher should not ask employment under any circumstances after his resignation.
2. He is eligible only for the monetary benefit as per rules in force upto his resignation dated i.e., on the afternoon of 31.8.2001.
The said order having not set aside by the learned single Judge, there was no occasion to direct the respondents (appellants) to pay the salary for the intervening period from 1.9.2001 to 30.9.2003. Further, the petitioner having resigned from service with effect from 31st August, 2001 and having been relieved by the school authorities with effect from 1st September, 2001, he having not worked thereafter, there was no occasion to direct the authorities to pay the salary from 1.9.2001 to 30.9.2003.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 35489 of 2003. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.Ps. are closed.