Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) T h e petitioner Krishna Saxena was appointed as Principal on ad hoc basis in Balika Inter College, Jalaun. A vacancy having arisen on the post of Principal on the retirement of regular Principal Nirmala Agarwal on 30.6.1998, resolution dated 8.7.1998 was passed by the committee of management for giving charge to the petitioner as Officiating Principal. The charge was given to the petitioner. By order dated 14.12.1998, the District Inspector of Schools approved her appointment on ad hoc basis as Principal till a regularly selected candidate on the post joined. The petitioner, however, submitted a letter dated 14.10.1998 to the Management that teachers were not satisfied with her and it appeared to her that she was not competent for the post of Principal and a direction for appointing another teacher to the post be given. Another letter dated 17.8.1999 (Annexure-Xii-F to the writ petition) was sent by her to the Manager stating that ever since she took over charge on 1.7.1998, she had worked with honesty and sincerity but she was not paid salary for the period 1.7.1998 to 31.12.1998 nor increment with effect from 1.7.1999 for the post of Principal ; that she was finding herself incompetent to handle the post of Principal and that some other teacher be appointed to accept the responsibility and she may be relieved and approval may be granted for her going back to the Lecturer Grade. The Committee of Management treating these letters as her resignation accorded acceptance after a period of one year by resolution dated 6.8.2000 (Annexure-IX to the writ petition). The petitioner has prayed for quashing this resolution of the Committee of Management and a command to the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 2 and the Committee of Management respondent No. 3 not to appoint any other ad hoc Principal of the college replacing the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the letters dated 14.10.1998 and 17.8.1999, were in fact not resignation letters at all; that even if these letters are treated as letters of resignation, the committee of management did not accept the proposal within a reasonable time and it was not open to the committee of management to have acted upon the said letters and to have accepted the resignation after a period of one year especially when by her conduct, the petitioner had indicated that she had no intention to resign. It is stated in para 20 of the writ petition that the petitioner had withdrawn her letters dated 14.10.1998 and 17.8.1999, by means of her letter dated 24.1.2000, addressed to the management before the resignation had become effective. THE resolution dated 6.8.2000 was never passed and the proceedings of that date are fabricated. The case of the management, on the other hand, is that no such letter dated 24.1.2000 was sent by the petitioner withdrawing her resignation ; that the. letters dated 14.10.1998 and 17.8.1999, were resignation letters; that a meeting of the committee was in fact held on 6.8.2000 and on that date, the petitioner's resignation was accepted. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, it has also been stated that the petitioner had attended the meeting dated 6.8.2000 and put her signatures in the proceedings of the aforesaid date. Photocopy of the minutes of the proceedings have been filed by the committee. It is also stated that the petitioner was not interested in working as Principal and she was sending repeated leave applications and had also expressed her unwillingness to work as Centre Superintendent-a conduct indicating her continued intention to resign.
(3.) WE will first examine the petitioner's case about having sent the letter dated 24.1.2000, withdrawing her previous letters dated 14.10.1998 and 17.8.1999. This letter dated 24.1.2000 is said to have sent under Certificate of Posting. The management has denied that any such letter was sent and its case is that this letter is forged. It is admitted to the petitioner that a notice was sent to her by the committee referring to the letters dated 14.10.1998 and 17.8.1999 and some other letters and calling for the petitioner's explanation in regard to disciplinary action to be taken against her. The petitioner sent three letters dated 28.7.2000, 2.8.2000 and 5.8.2000 to the management seeking time to submit her explanation. In hone of these letters, there was any mention of the letter dated 24.1.2000 by which the petitioner claims to have withdrawn her previous letters which are being treated by the committee as letters of resignation. The burden of proof that the petitioner had revoked her previous letters lay upon the petitioner. The question whether the letter dated 24.1.2000, was at all sent or served upon the management is a disputed question of fact and on the materials filed in the writ petition and in view of the fact that there is no reference of this letter in the subsequent letters of the petitioner referred to, before the resolution dated 6.8.2000. no finding can be given in this petition that the letter, dated 24.1.2000 was at all sent. The matter would require full fledged evidence including oral evidence to be led.;