Lovika Jain v. The Principal, Delhi Public School & Ors.

1973. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that no arrangements were made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint any substitute teacher in the place of the appellant as on the date of acceptance of the resignation and it is only later that Ms.Vandana Goswami, an existing teacher was entrusted with the duties of the appellant in addition to her own duties; that the respondents had no right to unilaterally waive the notice period without there being any request made from the side of the employee and therefore the respondents could not have deprived the appellant from the salary she was entitled to during the three months’ notice period; that even in the letter accepting the resignation of the appellant, nowhere have the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 taken a stand that they had appointed a teacher in her place in terms of proviso 2 (ii) of Rule 96(9); and that the appellant did not join the International School (her new employer) as she was conscious of the fact that she will have to serve the respondent No. 2 school during the three months’ notice period otherwise she would have joined the International School immediately after her resignation. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length. The petitioner was a permanent TGT (Counsellor) with respondent Nos. 1 and 2. She had tendered her resignation vide her resignation dated 1st May 2009. In her resignation letter, she stated that she would like to resign from the present post w.e.f. 1st May 2009. Simultaneously she also mentioned that she would serve out the notice period. This resignation was accepted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 12th May 2009, relieving the petitioner from her duties w.e.f. 16th May 2009. In the acceptance letter the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 made it explicitly clear that they had waived the notice period. The school was on vacation from 16th May 2009 till 7th July 2009 and when it reopened, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had assigned the duties of the petitioner to their existing teacher Ms. Vandana Goswami. The learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the proviso to Rule 96(9) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, by reading the same with the third proviso which states that before the expiry of the three months’ period, if a school is able to provide a substitute for a teacher, who is resigning then, Managing Committee can relieve the teacher from her earlier duties. Learned Single Judge is also correct in holding that the object of law, which becomes clear on reading the second and third provisos of Rule 96(9) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 together, is that the studies of the children in the school should not be affected because of the teacher suddenly leaving the school and this period of three months is provided so that the school may get a substitute teacher. The learned Single Judge has also clarified that the expression ‘substitute teacher’ does not mean that there necessarily has to be a fresh appointment inasmuch as the school may have sufficient number of teachers to teach the students, who were earlier taught by the teacher who had resigned from the school. Learned Single Judge has also correctly observed that if within three months as provided under proviso 2 (i) to Rule 96(9) of the said Rules, the substitute teacher is available then surely the school will be entitled to accept the resignation of the employee even before the expiry of three months period and consequently bring an end to the services of such resigning officer even prior to the three months’ period. Certainly, it is for the school to see whether they are in a position to provide a substitute for the teacher who is resigning and it is not for the teacher, who had resigned to keep a track as to how and in what manner the school would appoint a teacher in her place. In any event, the petitioner was to join her duties with the International School on or before 27th July 2009 meaning thereby that she was to join her duties before the expiry of three months’ period from the date of her resignation. In light of the aforesaid discussions, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is a well reasoned order and there is no reason to interfere with the same. There is no merit in the present petition. Resultantly, it is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J NAJMI WAZIRI, J OCTOBER 31, 2014 pkb