Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By this writ petition, order dated 01.08.1991 (Exhibit 8) whereby respondents 4 & 5 have accepted resignation of petitioner, has been questioned and assailed by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 2. According to petitioner, after qualifying in Senior Teacher Certificate Course in the year 1982-83, she was appointed by respondents 4 & 5 as Teacher in Hindu Dhrama Adarsh Primary School, Ajmer and joined on 01.07.1983 and continued till May, 1984 as is evident from certificate (Exhibit 1) issued by respondents on 15.07.1984 and thereafter she was regularly appointed as Teacher Grade III on 212.1985 after being duly selected by the Committee constituted pursuant to advertisement issued by respondents 4 & 5 and she worked till 01.08.1991. According to her, when she was appointed on 212.1985, respondents 4 & 5 took her signatures on blank papers and by putting her resignation thereon from 02.04.1991, it was got accepted by Managing Committee in its meeting held on 01.08.1991 and accordingly she was relieved in view of acceptance of alleged resignation vide order dated 01.08.1991 (Exhibit 8). Hence, this petition. 2.Miss Lily Counsel for petitioner urged that she was regularly selected and appointed as Teacher Grade III and was confirmed on 10.07.1987 but the Management Committee was harassing her, and was not making payment of due salary, to which she was entitled, and since she demanded full salary, respondent No. 5 issued notice to her on 28.05.1991 alleging her wilful absence on 23.05.1991, while she was on sanctioned casual leave. According to her, her signed blank papers were converted into letter of her resignation which was got accepted by respondents vide order dated 01.08.1991 (Exhibit 8) and that apart, despite grievance raised by her through her applications. "District Education Officer, but none considered her grievance and as per her case, such action of respondents is in violation of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India so also principles of natural justice. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 and 4 to 5 have filed their separate reply to writ petition. "District Education Officer, but none considered her grievance and as per her case, such action of respondents is in violation of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India so also principles of natural justice. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 and 4 to 5 have filed their separate reply to writ petition. Respondents 4 & 5 have disputed facts stated by petitioner and inter alia submitted that petitioner, at her own accord, submitted application (Annexure 4/3) seeking resignation on 02.04.1991 for the reason that after she got married owing to her family circumstances besides responsibilities, it was not possible for her to serve more, therefore, tendered resignation with immediate effect, but even after resignation was tendered, it was placed before Managing Committee in its meeting convened on 21.07.1991, in which decision was taken to accept her resignation and it was given effect w.e.f. 01.08.1991 afternoon, and accordingly order (Annexure 4/5) of relieving her from the school was passed on 01.08.1991 a copy whereof was sent to her and she put her signature by acknowledging its receipt in peon book on 06.08.1991 and all her dues like PF payment etc. were deposited in her bank account, after due sanction from District Education Officer as is evident from documents (Annexure 4/7 & 8). The fact stated by petitioner that her signatures were taken on blank papers and putting her resignation on those blank papers, has seriously been disputed by respondents 4 & 5. 5. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed their reply inter-alia supporting the contentions urged by respondents 4 & 5 in toto. 6. However, Shri Jagdish Rastogi, Counsel for respondents 4 & 5 urged that plea raised by petitioner that her signatures were got on blank papers whereon her resignation was got written by school authorities, is completely vague and based on no foundation because she tendered her resignation on 02.04.1991 at her own accord and despite receipt of resignation on 02.04.1991 it was accepted almost after four months and she never raised any grievance even with regard to blank papers being duly signed, if at all, taken by respondents School authority at the time of her resignation-in the absence of which, this Court cannot examine disputed questions of fact in its fettered jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 7. 7. Counsel for respondents 4 & 5 further urged that once petitioner left her job by tendering resignation at her own accord and after its due acceptance, it cannot be questioned by her before this Court in writ jurisdiction since it was her voluntary act of relinquishing the charge. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Sheikh Mahboob Mader vs. Syed Ashfaq Hussain, 1988 Suppl. (1) SCC 558. 8. Shri B.K. Sharma Deputy Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 supported the case as put up by respondents 4 & 5 reiterating that since this petition involves disputed questions of facts, the same cannot be looked into in writ jurisdiction. 9. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. 10. It is the case of petitioner herself that blank papers duly signed by her were obtained by respondents when she got appointment on 212.1985, as has been specifically stated in para 6 of writ petition. But no grievance was ever raised by petitioner either before the Management which took blank signed papers or to the Government authority in this regard. Even resignation was tendered by her on 02.04.1991 which was accepted on 01.08.1991 almost after four months, for which also no material has been placed on record to justify her case or explanation and that apart, since this fact has been seriously disputed by respondents in their reply, in my opinion, the same cannot be examined in limited scope under Article 226 of Constitution of India, since it requires meticulous consideration by appreciating of reappreciating material after adducing evidence of the parties on record so as to arrive at conclusions on disputed questions of facts. Therefore, I refrain from entering into disputed questions of facts in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, petitioner will be free to resort to other remedy if so advised in accordance with law.