Ravi S.Dhavan - (1.) ALL parties are represented at the time when this matter was presented. The first five respondents are State respondents. The respondent no. 6 is the Committee of Management represented by Mr. Nurul Huda, Advocate. One Smt. Daya Sharma has sought impleadment in the writ petition, which the Court has permitted and she has been added as respondent no. 7. Thus, upon issue of notices parties are represented.
(2.) ON facts there is no issue as the contesting respondents, in so far as the essential facts are concerned, narrate the same facts as the petitioner. Regard being had to the issue raised in the petition and further that similar issues were the subject matter of an order of the Supreme Court in the matter of Devi Krishna Goyal v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, 1990 (13) ATJ 155 (SC), and yet another order of the High Court in Special Appeal No. 482 of 1993, Smt. Kamla Sharma v. Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and others, this matter need not be kept lingering. The essential facts are these : Km. Shakuntala Tandon is the Principal at Shri Kedarnath Seksaria Arya Kanya Inter College. Belangunj, Agra. Her date of birth is 3 May 1936 and, according to Chapter III, Regulation 21 of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, though she would technically retire on 2 May 1996, otherwise she would continue to work till the end of the session, i.e., 30 June 1996. By a State Government circular dated 2 January 1991 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), the petitioner though she can retire at the age of 60 years, exercised her option to retire at the age of 58 years, implying thereby, she would, under the option so exercised, retire on 2 May 1994. But, in pursuance of the Regulation, aforesaid, complete the academic session ending 30 June 1994.
(3.) BY her letter of 24 November 1993, 21 December 1993, the petitioner intimated the District Inspector of Schools-II (Balika), Agra, (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) that in the matter relating to an option exercised by her earlier, being her letter of 2 January 1991, on which the District Inspector of Schools has yet to take a decision. she elects to withdraw the announcement to retire at the age of 58 years and would like to continue until the age of 60 years, an age also applicable to teachers as the date of retirement. In the meantime, the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 29 December 1993 asked the Committee of Management to send its comments along with three copies of the letter of the petitioner seeking to withdraw her option to retire at the age of 58 years. The letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 29 December 1993 is appended as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Now comes the relevance of the letter which the petitioner addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, dated 24 November 1993. 21 December 1993. It appears that the management sent nothing to the District Inspector of Schools, Further, the District Inspector of Schools, instead, was requiring the Committee of Management to send the option form by which the petitioner had elected to withdraw her consent to retire at the age of 58 years. In effect, the petitioner's option to withdraw her consent to retire at 58 years remained unconsidered at the office of the District Inspector of Schools. This is further fortified by the fact that it was rejected as late as on 21 January 1994 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) when the District Inspector of Schools intimated the petitioner that under law there is no provision that her earlier option by which she had agreed. to retire at 58 years, could be returned to her, or, for that matter, questioning her discretion to withdraw her option, though while in service. This communication of the District Inspector of Schools, dated 21 January 1994 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) has been impugned by the present writ petition. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, the contention of the District Inspector of Schools that there is no provision by which a teacher can withdraw an option to retire at 58 years so that he or she could continued until 60 years, is illogical. The very power which permits the District Inspector of Schools to accept the option simultaneously confers the discretion upon him to permit the option to be withdrawn, provided it is done within a reasonable time before the date of retirement. Exercise of powers cannot be so orbitrary as the District Inspector of Schools has suggested it to be. The only matter which is to be seen, is that an option must be withdrawn while the person is in service, implying thereby that if an option is attempted to be withdrawn after the teacher retires, then there is much the teacher has to explain, if the teacher intends to continue in service beyond 58 years. Such are not the circumstances in the present case.;