Safiya Malik

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, has adjudicated that once a resignation is accepted, it cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. The judgement came in the case of Nand Kishor v. The Managing Committee of Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya & Ors., where the appellant challenged the legality of his resignation’s acceptance by the school, alleging it was submitted under duress. The court upheld the acceptance of the resignation and dismissed the appeal.

The case revolved around the resignation of the appellant, Nand Kishor, who was employed as Head Clerk at Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya. Initially appointed on probation for a year from July 31, 2001, he was confirmed in service effective August 1, 2002. The appellant claimed he was pressured to resign on March 15, 2003, due to his raising concerns about corruption at Arya Orphanage.

On March 15, 2003, the appellant submitted his resignation, which was considered by the Managing Committee in its meeting on March 29, 2003. The resignation was formally accepted, and he was informed that it would take effect from June 30, 2003. The school’s principal recorded the acceptance on April 2, 2003, and conveyed the decision to the appellant. On May 8, 2003, the school notified the Deputy Director of Education about the resignation and requested approval to advertise the vacant position under Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (DSE Rules). The Directorate of Education did not respond within 30 days.

On July 7, 2003, the appellant submitted a request to withdraw his resignation, alleging it was submitted under coercion. The Directorate of Education initiated an inquiry and, on December 15, 2004, refused to grant approval to the resignation, directing the school to reinstate him. The school challenged this directive through a writ petition, which was allowed by a Single Judge, setting aside the Directorate’s order. The appellant then filed an intra-court appeal, arguing that the resignation was ineffective due to the school’s failure to secure explicit approval from the Director of Education within 30 days.

The court examined Rule 114A of the DSE Rules, which states that resignations from recognized private schools must be accepted within 30 days with the Director of Education’s approval. The appellant contended that since the school had not obtained explicit approval within the prescribed timeframe, the resignation was invalid. However, the court noted that the resignation letter was “unconditional with a request to accept the same with immediate effect.” It also observed that “since no communication was forwarded by the Director of Education within 30 days of the letter dated May 8, 2003, the resignation is deemed to have been approved under Rule 114A.”

The court further pointed out that the appellant did not challenge his resignation between March 15, 2003 (submission date), and July 7, 2003 (withdrawal request). It noted, “A comprehensive reading of the correspondence clearly reflects that resignation tendered by the appellant as accepted by the Managing Committee was duly intimated to the Director of Education seeking approval of the competent authority with a request for filling the post falling vacant on resignation by the appellant.” The court concluded that the appellant’s claim of coercion was raised belatedly, stating, “The resignation could not have been withdrawn after the same was accepted by the Managing Committee of the school on March 29, 2003.”

The court referred to Modern School v. Shashi Pal Sharma & Others (2007) 8 SCC 540, where a similar resignation withdrawal claim was dismissed. In that case, a teacher had submitted his resignation citing personal reasons, and the school forwarded it to the Director of Education for approval. Since the Directorate did not respond within 30 days, the resignation was deemed approved. When the teacher later claimed he had withdrawn his resignation, the court rejected his plea, stating that “once the resignation had been validly accepted, the respondent could not withdraw it unilaterally.” The Delhi High Court held this stance, stating that under Rule 114A, if the Director of Education does not respond within 30 days, approval is deemed granted.

The court also cited Anirudh Kumar Pandey v. Management of Modern Public School & Ors., LPA 620/2017, where the Delhi School Tribunal had initially held that a resignation could be withdrawn before explicit approval from the Director of Education. However, this decision was overturned by the High Court, which ruled that approval under Rule 114A can be explicit or deemed and that a resignation becomes final once accepted by the Managing Committee and unchallenged within the statutory timeframe.

The court observed that the appellant continued working at the school until June 30, 2003, following the acceptance of his resignation. It stated that the appellant’s attempt to withdraw the resignation on July 7, 2003, was legally unsustainable. Additionally, it held that the Directorate of Education had acted beyond its jurisdiction by refusing to approve the resignation more than a year after it had been formally accepted by the school.

The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the resignation was final and binding. The order from the Directorate of Education refusing to approve the resignation was deemed invalid, and the judgment of the Single Judge setting aside the Directorate’s order was upheld.

The court stated, “For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of Director of Education does not call for any interference.” The appellant’s contention that procedural lapses rendered the resignation ineffective was rejected.

Case Title: Nand Kishor v. The Managing Committee of Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya & Ors.
Case Number: LPA 115/2017
Bench: Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

[Read/Download order]