Dismissed¶48

Arul Regina Mary, v. the District Educational

Madras HC12 Jun 2025WP(MD)/9070/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acceptance of teacher's resignation by District Educational Officer; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; alleged fabricated resignation letter dated 03.09.2009; allegation of forcible eviction in 2008; approval sought under Section 17(A) Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1973; employee's failure to prove fabrication; conduct and long inaction (2009-2018) raising presumption of abandonment of employment; Secondary Grade Teacher; aided/private school dispute, Virudhunagar District; delay and acquiescence; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Though the petitioner denied submitting a resignation letter, she placed no material before the authorities establishing that the resignation letter produced by the Management was fabricated. ¶42

Arul Regina Mary, Vs the District Educational — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the first respondent recording the petitioner's resignation is liable to be quashed and a fresh enquiry directed. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

In these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Though the petitioner denied submitting a resignation letter, she placed no material before the authorities establishing that the resignation letter produced by the Management was fabricated.

¶42

Key takeaways

The petitioner's conduct in making no complaint and taking no step to resume employment from 2009 until the 2018 order raises a presumption that she gave up her right of employment and probalizes that she resigned the post.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (K. Rajasekar, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the District Educational Officer's order in Moo.Mu.No.2697/A3/2018 dated 04.09.2018 recording the petitioner-teacher's resignation and to direct a fresh enquiry. The petitioner, a Secondary Grade Teacher (2007-2008) in the third respondent school, alleged she was harassed and forcibly evicted in 2008 and that the resignation letter dated 03.09.2009 was fabricated/obtained by threats. The Court noted the management had sought approval of the resignation under Section 17(A) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1973 soon after 2009 (initially rejected for want of reasons), that after her reply dated 03.08.2018 she was given a further opportunity to appear and clarify but did not, that she placed no material proving fabrication, and that her silence and inaction from 2009 to 2018 raised a presumption that she had given up her right of employment and probalized the resignation. Writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

WP(MD).No.9070 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9070 of 2019 and WP(MD).Nos.7058 and 7059 of 2019

¶7

Arul Regina Mary .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Sivakasi.

¶10

2.The Block Educational Officer -2, Office of the Block Educational Officer, Maharajapuram at Watrap, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

3.The Correspondent, R.C.Primary Shool, Ayyanathampatti, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in

¶13

1/9

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

WP(MD).No.9070 of 2019

¶16

Moo.Mu.No.2697/A3/2018, dated 04.09.2018 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondent to conduct fresh enquiry with respect to alleged resignation of the petitioner and pass orders within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S. Karthick Subramanian For Respondents 1 &2 : Mr.N. Satheesh kumar Additional Public Prosecutor For 3^rd respondent : Mr.V. John Kennedy for M/s. Father Xavier Associates

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in Moo.Mu.No. 2697/A3/2018, dated 04.09.2018 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct fresh enquiry with respect to alleged resignation of the petitioner and pass orders within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that she was originally appointed as

¶21

2/9

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

WP(MD).No.9070 of 2019

¶24

a Secondary Grade Teacher during the academic year 2007 - 2008 in the 3^rd respondent school. Subsequently, she was not able to continue her employment due to the dispute with the management. She has stated in the affidavit that she had been harassed by the 3^rd respondent / management and she has been forcibly evicted from the school in the year 2008. After a decade i.e., on 02.08.2018 she had received a letter from the 1^st respondent / District Educational Officer stating that she had sent a resignation letter dated 03.09.2009 and she was called upon to attend the enquiry for approving the resignation. Letter called upon for an enquiry was received by the petitioner belatedly, after the date fixed for enquiry, hence, she could not appear before the 1^st respondent on the time stipulated in the call letter. Then, it was stated that another call letter was sent to the petitioner, but the same was not received by her. However, the petitioner came to know that the first respondent has accepted her resignation, subsequently, new person has also been appointed and the proceeding has also been issued by the first respondent. Aggrieved with the said acceptance of the resignation letter, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition to set aside the impugned order, dated 04.09.2018 passed by the first respondent.

¶25

3/9

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

WP(MD).No.9070 of 2019

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶29

the petitioner has not submitted any resignation letter to the school Management and the letter of resignation was received from her forcibly by threatening her with dire consequences and the same was also stated to the first respondent during enquiry. But, without considering her grievance and accusation, the first respondent has recorded the resignation by the impugned order, dated 04.09.2018 and hence, the same has to be set aside.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that due procedures contemplated under Section 17(A) of the Tamil Nadu Private schools (Regulation) Rules, 1973, has been properly followed and after, due enquiry the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the same.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submits that the petitioner after submitting her resignation letter in the year 2009, she left the school voluntarily and there is no eviction as stated by the petitioner. Immediately, after receiving the resignation letter from the

¶32

4/9

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

WP(MD).No.9070 of 2019

¶35

petitioner, the same was forwarded to the authorities for granting approval under Sections 17(A) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1973 and the same was rejected by the authorities. Hence, the post was not filled and was kept vacant for a long period. Subsequently, in the year 2018 in the interest of the student, they have accommodated another teacher by deploying from another school and the management has not appointed any new teacher in the place. At that point of time, the authorities have been approached for appointing of another person and the resignation of the petitioner was also intimated. The resignation letter of petitioner was considered and after due enquiry, the orders were passed.

¶36

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶37

Admittedly, the petitioner, who was left the school from the year 2009 has not made any complaint to the authorities against the management. Per contra, when the authorities have started for conducting enquiry, the petitioner has come forward with the letter

¶38

5/9

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

WP(MD).No.9070 of 2019

¶41

communication stating that she had not sent any resignation letter. On perusal of the impugned proceedings it is seen that after receiving the petitioner's reply, dated 03.08.2018 yet another opportunity has also been afforded to her to appear and clarify her stand, but, she had not appear and hence, the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent stating the petitioner resigned her job on her own.

¶42

The records produced before me also shows that immediately after resignation of petitioner in the year 2009, the management has attempted to get approval for the resignation of the petitioner as per 17(A) of the Tamil Nadu Private schools (Regulation) Rules, 1973, but the same had been rejected by the authorities on the ground that there was no reason for the resignation. The school management while deciding to accommodate the post by transferring the teacher, once again they have sent a resignation letter of the petitioner for approval and after due enquiry, order has been passed. Though the petitioner has denied that she had submitted a letter of resignation, there is no material or facts were established by her before the authorities that the resignation letter produced by the Management before the authorities is a fabricated one.

¶43

6/9

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

WP(MD).No.9070 of 2019

¶46

Admittedly, after 2009, she had not taken any step to record any

¶47

protest or taken any step to resume her employment. Only after passing of impugned order in the year, 2018 she woke up and claimed that, the resignation letter submitted by her is a fabricated one and her conduct raise presumption against her that, she has given up her right of employment. In other words her conduct supports the case of the management that the petitioner has not shown any interest to continue her employment and probalize the fact that she had resigned the post.

¶48

In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief as claimed in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶49

12.06.2025

¶50

Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No trp

¶51

7/9

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

WP(MD).No.9070 of 2019

¶54

To: