The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The case involved the resignation of an assistant teacher, Shriram Manohar Bande, from Vasantrao Naik High School, managed by Uktranti Mandal. Despite withdrawing his resignation, his termination was confirmed based on the management’s acceptance of the resignation. The appellant's claim that the resignation acceptance was not communicated was ruled irrelevant, as communication is not necessary for its validity under service laws. The court found that both the School Tribunal and High Court appropriately handled the case, adhering to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (MEPS) Act, 1977.

1. Introduction and Context (Paras 1-3):

• The appellant, an assistant teacher, resigned from his position and later withdrew the resignation. His termination was upheld by the High Court after being set aside by the School Tribunal. He approached the Supreme Court for relief.

2. Facts in Brief (Paras 4-5):

• The appellant resigned on 10.10.2017 but attempted to withdraw it on 25.10.2017. The school’s management refused to let him resume work, citing that the resignation had already been accepted. He approached the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, challenging his termination.

3. Tribunal’s Findings (Paras 6-7):

• The Tribunal concluded that the resignation withdrawal was valid and the termination was unlawful, declaring that the management’s documents, including resolutions accepting the resignation, were fabricated.

4. High Court’s Findings (Paras 8-9):

• The High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing that the acceptance of resignation does not need to be communicated to be valid under the MEPS Act. The High Court found no evidence of fabrication and deemed the termination lawful.

5. Contentions of the Parties (Paras 10-10.3):

• The appellant argued that the resignation was improperly processed and that the management fabricated documents. The respondents maintained that the resignation was voluntary and accepted per procedure, arguing against any fabrication.

6. Discussion and Analysis (Paras 11-24):

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, finding that the acceptance of the resignation was valid despite the non-communication of acceptance. The Court noted that no specific rule under the MEPS Act requires communication for resignation to take effect. Moreover, the resignation was voluntary and accepted according to the law.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (MEPS) Act, 1977:
   • Section 8: Governs the appeals process for employees terminated by private schools.
   • Section 9: Allows employees to challenge termination before a tribunal.
   • Section 7: Lays down the procedure for resignation by employees.
2. MEPS Rules, 1981:
   • Rule 40: Details the procedure and conditions under which an employee can resign, particularly focusing on the notice period.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court emphasized that resignation is effective upon acceptance, even if not communicated, as long as the governing rules do not specifically require such communication. The management’s authority to accept resignation per Rule 40 of MEPS Rules and Section 7 of the MEPS Act was upheld. The case reaffirms that non-communication of acceptance does not invalidate resignation if the statutory procedure is followed.

Subjects:

Employment Law, Resignation, School Employment Disputes
Termination, MEPS Act, Employment Dispute, Education Law