Gyan Sudha Misra, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur (shortly referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 25.10.1994 by which the respondent No.2-Dr. Manjula Sharma has been ordered to be reinstated in service as Principal of Balmandir Mahila Sikshak Prasikshan Mahavidyalaya by recording a finding that the letter of resignation sent by the respondent No.2-Dr. Manjula Sharma could not have been accepted after seven months of that resignation since all these months she had been permitted to continue in the job as Principal.
(2.) The respondent No.2-Dr.Sharma had filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non- Government. Educational Institutions Regulations 1989 wherein she related her case and and submitted that she had been appointed as Principal of the College on 22.2.1993 and thereafter an order was passed extending her services till 10.5.1993 or till a duly selected candidate was available. Thereafter no one else was appointed and thus she was allowed to continue on the post. However, some differences arose between Dr. Sharma and the petitioner-Joint Secretary as a result of which, the petitioner in a huff and state of excitement offered a letter of resignation dated 15.3.1993. But according to her further case when the Secretary of the Institution and other employees persuaded her not to insist on the resignation on 22.10.1993. Thereafter she was allowed to continue on the post for a period of seven months during which she was also appointed as member of Senate of the Rajasthan University. All of a sudden on 30.5.1994 a letter was sent to her informing her that the letter of resignation which had been sent by the respondent No.2-Dr.Sharma seven months ago had been accepted by the University and thus she was no longer the Principal of the College. The respondent-Dr.Sharma challenged this letter before the Tribunal under the appropriate provision by filing a petition therein.
(3.) The petitioner-Institution contested the case of the respondent and filed reply as also advanced oral submissions. It was contended on behalf of the Institution that the letter of withdrawal of resignation of the respondent which was claimed to have been sent on 22.3.1993, in fact had never been received by the Institution and hence they were not aware whether any withdrawal letter was sent by the respondent to the Institution. It was further submitted by them that the respondent-Dr. Sharma was allowed to continue for a period of seven months in spite of the letter of resignation as it was the mid session of the students and they were under compulsion to permit the Principal to continue as her resignation could not have been accepted during mid session affecting the administration of the Institution.;