- (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of In dia, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28-01-2000, whereby the District Basic Education Officer, has declared the petitioner's resignation accepted. A mandamus has also been sought against the respondents directing them to pay the salary of the petitioner, as he had withdrawn his letter of resignation dated 16-12-1999, before the date when it was to be accepted. The entry made in the service book, treating the peti tioner retired w. e. f. 16-01-2000, is also. sought to be quashed,
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Brief facts of the case, as nar rated in the petition, are that the peti tioner was Assistant Teacher in Nehru Inter College, Badshahpur, District Haridwar, run by the Committee of Man agement (respondent No. 3 ). The peti tioner was working on aforesaid post since 15-01-1976. Admittedly, on 29-11-; 1999, petitioner submitted a letter of res ignation due to his family problems in which it was mentioned that the same had to be given effect from 16-01-2000. Copy of the resignation letter is annexed as Annexure- 1 to the petition. The peti tioner's case is that he withdrew the res ignation on 16-12-1999 (copy Annexure-3 to the petition), before the same could have been accepted. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Committee of Man agement with ulterior motive, got the resignation accepted and the petitioner was shown retired from service w. e. f. 16-01-2000. It is further alleged by the petitioner that on 28-01-2000, when the District Basic Education Officer, declared the resignation accepted in the presence of the petitioner, the petitioner was on leave and was not present before said authority. It is also alleged that one Rishi Pal (brother of a member of Manage ment Committee) was got inducted in place of the petitioner in a pre-planned manner. With these averments, the aforesaid prayers have been made chal lenging the impugned order, as illegal and arbitrary. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of District Inspector of Schools or District Basic Education Of ficer since,2000 till date. However, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 in which it is admit ted that the petitioner did submit letter of resignation in the month of Novem ber, 1999. However, it is denied that the petitioner withdrew his resignation before the acceptance of the same. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on 28-01-2000, when the Basic Education Officer, declared the resignation ac cepted, the petitioner himself was present before said authority. Not only this, according to the contesting respond ent, petitioner even submitted applica tion for payment of Provident Fund to him, as post retiral benefits. Defending appointment of Rishipal, the successor of the petitioner, the allegation of mal ice is denied.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner sub mitted resignation on 29/30-11-1999 from the post of Assistant Teacher in Nehru Junior High School, which was being run by Management Committee (respondent No. 3 ). The question for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner withdrew the resignation before the same was ac cepted and whether the acceptance of the resignation is not valid. The fact relating to withdrawal of resignation vide letter dated 16-12-1999 is a dis puted fact and has been denied by respondent No. 3. The letter of ac ceptance -. dated 28-01-2000, which is Annexure-C. A. 1 to the counter affi davit is a letter of respondent No. 2-District Basic Education Officer, who has mentioned while accepting the resignation that the petitioner Jagdish Prasad Saini, Assistant Teacher was himself present and requested for the acceptance of his resignation letter. It can be believed that the members of Management Committee might be having interest to appoint their own man in place of the petitioner but it is hard to believe that the Basic Edu cation Officer, a public functionary would mention in the letter of accept ance that the petitioner was himself present before him along with the Manager and Principal of School and the resignation was accepted in their presence. Another fact on record, which makes story of withdrawal of resigna tion doubtful is that the Annexure-C. A. 2 to the counter affidavit, shows that after the resignation was ac cepted, the petitioner himself had ap plied for payment of Provident Fund after his retirement w. e. f. 16-01-2000 and the said document is signed not only by the petitioner but also by the Manager of School and also by Prin cipal of School. It is not disputed that the petitioner is already getting post retiral benefits, as mentioned in letter dated 22-05-2001, which is part of Annexure-3.;