P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THEE petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the secondary school owned and managed by the first respondent-Dust on August 4 1976 On August 25 1980 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet in regard to certain alleged misconduct. The petitioner tendered his reply to the charge sheet. The management thereupon appointed an Inquiry Committee and the said Committee commenced inquiry proceedings some time in the month of November 1980 It is the case of the petitioner that while the inquiry was still in progress the Managing Trustee and Principal of the school as well as the members of the Inquiry Committee made attempts to persuade the petitioner to tender resignation. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was threatened with criminal prosecution and warned that his service record might be spoiled unless he voluntarily left the institution by tendering resignation. The petitioner has produced at Annexure A (collectively) three letters addressed to him by the Principal of the school calling upon him to tender resignation. The first letter is dated January 12 1981 It states that at the meeting of the Committee (presumably the Inquiry Committee) held on January 5 1981 he was asked to bring the resignation in triplicate which he had failed to do and that therefore he should personally tender resignation in triplicate on January 13 1981 at 12-30 noon. The second letter is dated January 24 1981 This letter also refers to the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee held on January 5 1981 in the same terms and records that the petitioner had neither tendered resignation nor sent a reply to the letter dated January 12 1981 The letter proceeded to state that if the petitioner failed to appear in person with his resignation at 11-30 A. M. on January 27 1981 further proceedings will have to be taken against the petitioner. The third letter is dated January 27 1981 It refers to the earlier communications dated yjanuary 12 1981 and Januar 24 1981 and proceeds to state that the petitioner had failed to reply to those letters or to appear in person with his resignation in triplicate. The third letter is dated January 27 1981 It refers to the earlier communications dated yjanuary 12 1981 and Januar 24 1981 and proceeds to state that the petitioner had failed to reply to those letters or to appear in person with his resignation in triplicate. The petitioner was informed that he was being given the last chance to appear in person with his resignation in triplicate on January 29 1981 at 11 A. M. and he was warned that if he failed to tender resignation according the management will be compelled to take further proceedings against the petitioner. A copy of this letter was forwarded to all the three members of the Inquiry Committee. ( 2 ) THE petitioners case is that on February 25 1981 he was summoned to the school. The Managing Trustee the Principal members of the Inquiry Committee and a few other persons were present when he went there. The petitioner was pressurised by those persons to tender his resignation and he was threatened with dire consequences such as dismissal from service and criminal prosecution if he Ailed to tender resignation. At the end of about two hours exercise in that direction those persons succeeded in obtaining from the petitioner a letter of resignation as dictated by the Principal. The petitioner was then taken to the office of the District Education Officer Ahmedabad by some of the representatives of the management including the Principal. At the said office the District Education Officer was not present on that day. One Mr. Rathod was the In-charge Officer. The petitioner was taken to the chamber of the said officer and the resignation tendered by him earlier was produced before the said officer by the Principal. The officer was not conversant with the procedure and he therefore summoned one Mr. Soni who was employed in the same office. Mr. Soni advised that ordinarily in cases where departmental proceedings were pending approval under Section 36 (4) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 was not granted. Mr. Soni is also alleged to have advised that the petitioner should be granted some time to reflect over the resignation and that independent inquiry should also be held to ascertain the voluntary nature of the resignation. Mr. Rathod thereupon expressed his unwillingness to immediately endorse the resignation. The Principal and one of the persons accompanying him thereupon requested Mr. Mr. Soni is also alleged to have advised that the petitioner should be granted some time to reflect over the resignation and that independent inquiry should also be held to ascertain the voluntary nature of the resignation. Mr. Rathod thereupon expressed his unwillingness to immediately endorse the resignation. The Principal and one of the persons accompanying him thereupon requested Mr. Rathod to give them private audience. The request was granted. After joint deliberations took place for about forty minutes between Mr. Rathod and those persons in the chamber of the former the petitioner was called in and he was asked to endorse below the letter of resignation that he was tendering the same voluntarily. The resignation was thereafter endorsed by Mr. Rathod and it was accepted on the next day that is February 26 1981 The resignation was made effective from June 25 1981 and it was accepted in those terms. ( 3 ) THE further case of the petitioner is that by his letter dated June 8 1981 he withdrew the resignation setting out the circumstances under which it was tendered by him. By a letter dated June 11 1981 the School Management informed the petitioner that his resignation had already been accepted and that he was not entitled to withdraw the same. ( 4 ) IN light of the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner instituted the present petition on June 22 1981 Notice was ordered to issue on June 23 1981 and it was made returnable on June 30 1981 Ad-interim relief against enforcement of the order accepting the resignation of the petitioner was granted on the same day. On August 10 1981 rule was ordered to issue on the petition and it was made returnable on September 14 1981 Interim relief was directed to continue. The petition has now reached hearing before this Court. ( 5 ) NO affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the District Education Officer Ahmedabad who is the third respondent. An affidavit-in-reply has however been filed on behalf of the School Management by the second respondent (Principal of the School ). In the affidavit-in-reply the Principal has denied all the material allegations contained in the petition. The Principal has annexed as Annexure A to his affidavit-in-reply a xerox copy of the resignation dated March 6 1981 submitted by the petitioner to the School Management. In the affidavit-in-reply the Principal has denied all the material allegations contained in the petition. The Principal has annexed as Annexure A to his affidavit-in-reply a xerox copy of the resignation dated March 6 1981 submitted by the petitioner to the School Management. Annexure A shows that the petitioner had tendered his resignation effective on and with effect from June 25 1981 for social reasons. Below the resignation tendered in the aforesaid terms under the signature of the petitioner the Principal of the school has made the-following endorsement:"shri P. N. Patel is tendering resignation before you which may please be accepted. The school has no objection in the acceptance of his resignation. SD/- J. M. Mehta principal shri Damubhai Shukla Madhya- mik Shala Paladi Ahmedabad-380007. BELOW the aforesaid endorsement is found another endorsement which is made by the petitioner and it is in the following terms:"i am tendering this resignation before you out of my own volition and without any pressure. Sd/- Popatlal N. Patel 7-3-81"in the margin there is an endorsement under his signature made by the District Education Officer Ahmedabad on March 7 1981 in the following terms:"before me, Sd/- District Education Officer -Ahmedabad. It is the case of the School Management that the entire version of the petitioner with regard to the resignation having been tendered on February 25 1981 is incorrect in the circumstances mentioned above. The resignation dated March 6 1981 was tendered to the District Education Officer on March 7 1981 and the allegation that the resignation was obtained under threat and duress that it was written in the school premises that thereafter it was tendered by the petitioner before Mr. Rathod at the office of the District Education Officer in the presence of the representatives of the School Management and that the resignation was not voluntary are all denied in the affidavit-in-reply. The petitioners claim that he had withdrawn the resignation and that therefore it could not be made effective against him is resisted on the ground that the resignation having been already accepted the petitioner had no locus to withdraw the same and that he cannot claim to continue in service on the strength of such withdrawal. The petitioners claim that he had withdrawn the resignation and that therefore it could not be made effective against him is resisted on the ground that the resignation having been already accepted the petitioner had no locus to withdraw the same and that he cannot claim to continue in service on the strength of such withdrawal. ( 6 ) AT the hearing it was contended on behalf of the petitioner: (1) that the petitioner having withdrawn the resignation before it became effectiev the resignation did not remain outstanding and that his claim to have continued in service cannot be resisted on that ground and (2) that the petitioners resignation was not voluntary and that it was obtained under threat and coercion and that the third respondent (District Education Officer) failed to determine in accordance with law whether the resignation was voluntary. ( 7 ) THOUGH the first contention was hesitatingly urged for some time ultimately the same was given up when it was realised that the resignation having already been accepted before the petitioner withdrew the same the petioner had no locus standi to urge that the withdrawal of the resignation was effective and that therefore he continued in service. That leaves in the field the second contention which requires to be considered. ( 8 ) AT this stage it would be apropriate to cite Section 36 sub-section (4) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 it reads as:" (4) Where a head master a teacher or a member of the non-teaching staff of a registered private secondary school desires to submit his resignation the resignation shall be tendered by him in person to the District Education Officer concerned and shall not be accepted by the manager unless it is so tendered and forwarded to him by such officer duly endorsed. The acceptance of any such resignation tendered in contravention of this sub-section shall be ineffective. The acceptance of any such resignation tendered in contravention of this sub-section shall be ineffective. "on an analysis of the said sub-section it will appear that the following conditions are required to be satisfied so that the acceptance of the resignation of a head master a teacher or a member of the non-teaching staff of a registered private secondary school can be treated as valid and effective: (1) the resignation must be tendered by the concerned employee in person to the concerned District Education Officer; (2) as and when the resignation is tendered accordingly the District Education Officer will forward the same duly endorsed to the school management; (3)UNLESS it is so tendered and forwarded the manager shall not accept the resignation. The consequence of acceptance of any resignation tendered in contravention of the sub-section is that such resignation shall be ineffective. The question is whether the District Education Officer acts merely as a post office and whether he is required to mechanically forward the resignation once it is tendered in person before him by the concerned employee or whether he is a duly constituted statutory authority who has to satisfy himself in the discharge of the function entrusted to him under the subsection that the case is one where the resignation may be accepted and that therefore it is required to be forwarded by him to the school management with an endorsement in that behalf. In order to answer this question it would be necessary to consider how the law stood when Section 36 (4) was enacted what the mischief was for which the old law did not provide and the remedy provided by Section 36 (4) to cure that mischief. ( 9 ) THE report of the Select Committee on the Gujarat Secondary Edution Bill throws some light on this subject. The report is published in the Gujarat Government Gazette Extraordinary dated January 8. 1973 Part V. The following portion extracted from Para 42 of the report of the Committee (Page 15) is material for the purposes of the present case:" It is well-known that a large number of complaints are received in connection with the mal-practices prevailing in a number of schools regarding the appointments payments of salaries and resignations removals and suspensions of teachers. . . . . It has also been alleged that sometimes undated letters of resignations duly signed by the teachers are obtained much in advance and the managements make use of the same when they like. . . One of the purposes for which the measure is introduced is to protect and safeguard the interest of teachers and to minimise the scope for exploitation of teachers under social and economic pressures. "the following further passage from the report of the Committee (Page 23) is also material and it is reproduced verbatim:"62. Clause 36 (4) of the amended bill. As explained in detail in paragraph 42 one of the mal-practices alleged to be resorted to by the management of the schools is regarding the manner of obtaining resignations from the staff. The Committee therefore feels that it is necessary to stop this alleged mal-practice by providing a suitable and reasonable control and by making an adequate provision in that behalf. Various aspects and alternative proposals received in this behalf were considered by the Committee. On a careful consideration of all the factors involved the Committee felt that even though it may cause little inconvenience to the teacher a provision should be made that the resignation should be tendered by a teacher in person before the District Education Officer who should endorse the same and forward it to the management and thereafter only it should be accepted by the management and if the resignation is not tenddered in the manner prescribed the acceptance of the same should be ineffective. The Committee has therefore recommended an addition of a new subclause (4) in clause 36 prescribing the manner in which the resignation should be tendered. ( 10 ) THE statement of objects and reasons which is published in the Gujarat Government Gazette Extraordinary dated August 10 1972 Part V. at page 241 does not throw much light and it need not therefore be referred to. ( 11 ) IT would thus appear that subsection (4) of Section 36 was introduced in the statue book with a view to providing a suitable machinery for exercising control in the matter of tender and acceptance of resignations of employees of registered private secondary schools inasmuch as it was found that malpractices were resorted to by school managements such as for example obtaining resignations in advance from their employees. The provision was therefore conceived as a measure of protection for the members of the teaching and non-teaching staff and an independent authority was constituted before whom the resignation was required to be tendered in person by such staff member so that whether it is voluntary and genuine can be verified and the circumstances leading to the tender of resignation could be ascertained. Sub-section (4) of Section 36 must be interpreted bearing in mind this legislative object and it should be read as far as practicable so as to effectuate the said object. ( 12 ) IT would not be out of place to mention at this stage that the State. Government had issued instructions to the Director of Education Gujarat State Ahmedabad under its letter dated March 22 1973 (before the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 was brought into force) in regard to the procedure for tendering resignation by a Head Master a teacher or a member of the non-teaching staff of a recognised non-Government Secondary School. In the Course of the letter containing these directions the State Government pointed out that it had been brought to its notice that some of the managements of non-Government Secondary Schools obtained letters of resignation without the date being mentioned thereon from the members of the staff with a veiw to misusing the same at a future date. The letter proceeded to state that pending enforcement of the Secondary Education Act the Government had decided that the resignation tendered by a Head Master a teacher or a member of the Staff of a non-Government secondary school should not be treated as valid for the purposes of grant-in-aid unless it is tendered by such a person to the District Education Officer concerned and forwarded by the District Education Officer with his endorsement to the nongovernment secondary school concerned. The letter also stated that the acceptance of any resignation in contravention of the aforesaid instructions would be treated as invalid and that the salary grant payable to the school would be reduced under rule 95 of the Grantin-aid Code by an amount equal to the pay and allowances etc. of the person appointed in the place of the person whose resignation is so accepted. of the person appointed in the place of the person whose resignation is so accepted. The Director of Education was requested to issue necessary instructions to all District Education Officers and the managements and members of the staff of nongovernment secondary schools in the State with a view to ensuring that the instructions were observed scrupulously. This circular also throws light on the circumstances prevailing at or about the time when the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 was on the anvil and the administrative measures adopted by the State Government with a view to curbing mal-practices in regard to the resignations by members of the staff teaching as well as non-teaching of non-Government secondary schools. Be it noted that under the Government instructions issued as aforesaid it was not required of the teacher to tender resignation to the District Education Officer in person. The resignation could be tendered to the said officer even by post and such tender would have been treated as valid. Under subsection (4) of Section 36 however the requirement is that the resignation should be tendered in person by the concerned member of the staff. ( 13 ) IN the light of the foregoing discussion it would appear that the District Education Officer while discharging his function under sub-section (4) must not act merely as a post-office. He has to function as a statutory authority to whom is entrusted the task of ascertaining after making such inquiry as he considers fit and proper whether the resignation is the outcome of the free consent of the person tendering the same and to forward the same to the school management duly endorsed only if he is satisfied on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the resignation may be accepted. The function must be discharged by the District Education Officer not mechanically but with full consciousness of the mischief of evil which was found to be widely prevalent and which was intended to be remedied by the creation of an independent agency like himself for the purpose of being satisfied about the genuineness and voluntary character of the resignation. ( 14 ) NOW in the instant case the parties are at variance on a material circumstance namely the date on which the resignation was tendered the circumstances under which it was tendered and the officer to whom it was tendered. ( 14 ) NOW in the instant case the parties are at variance on a material circumstance namely the date on which the resignation was tendered the circumstances under which it was tendered and the officer to whom it was tendered. In writ jurisdiction it may not be possible to resolve some of those disputes. Still however the Court will have to examine whether the District Education Officer has discharged the funcion entrusted to him under sub-section (4) of Section 36 in the manner expected of him having regard to the perspective referred to earlier. For this purpose the Court will assume that the resignation was written on March 6 1981 that it was tendered in person to the District Education Officer and that the endorsement of the petitioner at the foot of the resignation was made by him in the presence of the District Education Officer on March 7 1981 The question is whether even if these assumptions are made is it possible to hold that the District Educaation Officer acted within the four corners of law in the instant case bearing in mind all the relevant facts and circumstanes of the case while discharging his function under sub-section (4) of Section 36. ( 15 ) THERE are certain circumstances in this case which require close examination. The petitioner had been in the employment of the respondent-school management for a period of approximately five years when the resignation was tendered. The text of the resignation shows that he was not leaving the service of the respondent-school for the betterment of his prospects or for some such or similar reasons but for social reasons. The social reasons are not articulated and it is not known whether any attempt was made to ascertain from the petitioners what those social reasons were. There is internal evidence to show that the Principal of the respondent school had accompanied the petitioner when the resignation was tendered in person before the District Education Officer. This is evident from the endorsement of the Principal which finds place below the text of the resignation. This circumstance ought to have put the District Education officer on guard and he ought to have ascertained with greater circumspection that the resignation was the result of the free consent of the petitioner and that it was not procured by coercion undue influence fraud or misrepresentation. This circumstance ought to have put the District Education officer on guard and he ought to have ascertained with greater circumspection that the resignation was the result of the free consent of the petitioner and that it was not procured by coercion undue influence fraud or misrepresentation. Be it noted in this connection that the endorsement made by the Principal conveyed in advance the willingness of the school management to accept the resignation. This circumstance also should have put the District Education Officer on guard and he ought to have displayed greater vigilance than what he appears to have done. It is true that the resignation contains the endorsement of the petitioner made in the presence of the District Education Officer that it was the result of his volition and that he had tendered the same without any pressure. However if the resignation is the outcome of some Kind of misrepresentation or fraud or the like such an endorsement would undoubtedly be made by the person tendering resignation. By it self such an endorsement cannot therefore absolve the District Education Officer from his duty to enter upon an independent inquiry as to the genuineness and voluntary character of the resignation. In the instant case if he had undertaken such an exercise two very significant circumstances would have come to light which would have guided him in proper discharge of his function. Those circumstances are: (i) that a disciplinary proceeding was already pending against the petitioner and that an Inquiry Committee was seized of the proceeding when the resignation was tendered and (ii) that as many as three communications were addressed by the Principal to the petitioner calling upon him to tender resignation and that two of those letters contained a clear stipulation that unless he tenders resignation the disciplinary proceedings would be continued against him. Having regard to the overall circumstances of the case the mere endorsement made by the District Education Officer Before me does not appear to suggest that proper inquiry was made by the District Education officer in the discharge of his function under sub-section (4) of Section 36. What makes the matter worse is that there is no affidavit-inreply filed by him. What makes the matter worse is that there is no affidavit-inreply filed by him. If an affidavit-in-reply had been filed stating that all the circumstances were present to his mind and that still he was satisfied that the resignation was voluntary and if the stand adopted by him accordingly was found to be acceptable different considerations would have prevailed on the totality of circumstances. ( 16 ) FOR the foregoing reasons it is not possible to hold that the statutory authority namely the District Education Officer has acted in due discharge of his duty under sub-section (4) of Section 36 in the instant case. The result therefore is that his action of forwarding the resignation duly endorsed to the respondent-school management is not in accordance with law and consequently the acceptance of such resignation by the school management is also not in accordance with law. The question which must then be considered is as to what relief should be granted to the petitioner in the instant case. ( 17 ) ALTHOUGH the school-management accepted the resignation the peti tioner has continued in service by virtue of the interim relief granted by this Court There is therefore no question of reinstatement of the petitioner in service with back wages. The just and proper relief which requires to be granted on the facts and in the circumstances of the case therefore is to declare that the purported action of the District Education Officer in forwarding the resignation of the petitioner duly endorsed to the school-management and the consequential acceptance of the resignation by the school-management is null and void and that the petitioner must be treated as having continued in service as if his resignation was not cepted. The District Education Officer will however be at liberty to treat the resignation of the petitioner as having been duly tendered to him in person and to proceed to deal with the resignation from that stage onwards in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in this judgment. If and when the District Education Officer initiates any proceedings in that behalf it will be open to the petitioner to contend before him that the resignation stands withdrawn before its acceptance; if and when the petitioner raises such a contention the District Education Officer will duly consider the same and arrive at his final decision after such consideration. If and when the District Education Officer initiates any proceedings in that behalf it will be open to the petitioner to contend before him that the resignation stands withdrawn before its acceptance; if and when the petitioner raises such a contention the District Education Officer will duly consider the same and arrive at his final decision after such consideration. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .