JUDGMENT:- Rule. Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-teacher, waives service of rule. Mr. Vanarase. learned Assistant Government Pleader. waives service of Rule on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. With the consent of advocates. matter is heard today finally. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioner -management has challenged an order passed by School Tribunal, Pune Region at Sholapur, dated 25th March, 2008 in Appeal No.98 of 2006 by which the School Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent-teacher and set aside the order of termination dated 14th November. 2005. 3. The respondent-teacher (hereinafter "the respondent") had preferred an appeal before the School tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Act". The case of the respondent is that he was appointed as an Assistant Physical Teacher in the school on 11th June, 200 I as he possessed qualification of B.A. B.P. Ed. It is his case that he had served for four years and five months till 13th November. 2005. It is also the case of the of the respondent that he had completed the probation period satisfactorily and he was having unblemished tenure and that he was a permanent employee of the school. It is also his case that his services were terminated on 14th November, 2005 without following the due process of Iaw even though he was a permanent employee of the School. 4. The said appeal was resisted by the school management on the ground that the respondent was not having a permanent status in the employment and that he has suo motu gave resignation from the post with effect from 31st May. 2005 and since then he is not in service. The resignation was forwarded to the Education Officer and another Assistant Physical Teacher Mr. Narayan Bhosale was appointed on the said vacant post. It is the case of the management that since the appellant had resigned, his appeal before the Tribunal was not competent The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and after considering the evidence on record came 10 the conclusion that the theory of so-called resignation is not believable. The Tribunal has found that the respondent had put in more than four years service continuously and he had acquired the status of a permanent employee. The Tribunal has found that the respondent had put in more than four years service continuously and he had acquired the status of a permanent employee. It has been found that the resignation was not sent as per the prescribed procedure as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act read with Rule 40 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules. 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules"). Considering the aforesaid aspect the Tribunal held that it cannot be said that the concerned employee had tendered his resignation on his own volition but his services were terminated orally. It has been found that even he had signed the muster roll thereafter which muster roll has been considered by the Court which is at Exhibit-31 on record. On this it was found that the stand of the management is falsified by the evidence on record and it is also found that it cannot be said that the respondent had resigned on his own accord from the post in question. 5. Mr. Joshi. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that once a teacher has tendered his resignation, he cannot approach the Tribunal by way of appeal under Section 9 of the Act Mr. Joshi has further submitted that it is not mandatory that a teacher must sent resignation by registered post. He further submitted that simply because the teacher has not sent his resignation by registered post itself is not sufficient to hold that such resignation is not legal. Mr. Joshi further submitted that the procedure, therefore, is merely directory and not mandatory. In order 10 substantiate his argument Mr. Joshi has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Hon. Secretary, Talini Imadadiah Committee Mistry High School, Ratnagiri and another Vs. Wasir Pasha Tajoddin Jagirdar, 2005(4) Mh.LJ. 1064 : [2005(3) ALL MR 354J. Mr. Joshi also further submitted that during the pendency of appeal, the respondent was also reinstated in service in view of the interim order passed by the Tribunal. He. However, submitted that the tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the teacher cannot be said to have resigned from the services as he was subjected to oral termination. 6. Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. He. However, submitted that the tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the teacher cannot be said to have resigned from the services as he was subjected to oral termination. 6. Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. on the other hand submitted that the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal should not be disturbed by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. Mr. Bhosale has further submitted that whether a teacher has voluntarily given resignation or not or whether such resignation can be said to be valid or not are all disputed questions of fact and the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has given a finding. Such a finding is not required to be disturbed by this Court. He submitted that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has found that after tendering the so-called resignation the concerned teacher has even signed the muster roll and under the circumstances the Tribunal has found that the management look advantage of some signatures of the teacher taken on blank papers. It is submitted that the resignation was not even in the handwriting of the petitioner as it was on a typed paper. He submitted that there is no substance in the petition and the order of Tribunal is required to be confirmed. 6-A. I have heard Mr. Vanarase, the learned Assistant Government Pleader. who has supported the order of the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the learned advocates at length. I have also gone through the judgment of the Tribunal and supporting documents annexed with the petition. In this connection, it is required to be noted that the respondent teacher was appointed on the post in question as Assistant Physical Teacher. It is not in dispute that he was holding the requisite qualifications for such appointment. His appointment was made as back as 11th June. 2001 and he continued for more than four years and five months on the said post. It is also required to be noted that the approval was also granted for appointing him on the said post by the Education Department on 27th February. 2004 with effect from 11th June. 2001. The Tribunal has considered the original copy of catalogue, original copy of catalogue for the month of August. It is also required to be noted that the approval was also granted for appointing him on the said post by the Education Department on 27th February. 2004 with effect from 11th June. 2001. The Tribunal has considered the original copy of catalogue, original copy of catalogue for the month of August. 2005, original copy of the leave application and copy of the note book. Considering the said documents on record, the Tribunal has found at point No.2 that the appointment was made as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. It has been found that the appointment was also given in the duly prescribed form in Schedule-D. The Tribunal has accordingly, on appreciating the evidence on record, found that the appointment was made on a clear post. approval was granted by the Education Officer and the respondent had served for more than four years. In my view. the Tribunal has considered all aspects by considering relevant documents on record and proper reasoning is given by the Tribunal while deciding point Nos.2 and 3 in the matter. 8. Mr. Joshi very vehemently submitted that in any case since teacher had tendered his resignation and since such resignation has been accepted by the management. there was no question of challenging the said decision as the respondent had left the services on his own volition as he resigned from the post in question. However, this argument of the management is in my view. contradictory. If the say of the management that the appointment is only temporary and he had no right to the post. Naturally, then there was no question on the part of the teacher to send resignation as if he was not a teacher in the permanent post. Naturally, there was no question on his part to send resignation as he could have left the services at any point of time. The theory of so-called resignation put forward by the management it self justify the say of the management that the appointment was made after following due process. That apart, it is the say of the teacher that blank signatures were taken from him but he had never tendered his resignation. On this aspect, the Tribunal has also found that the so-called letter of resignation was typed later on which the petitioner had signed. 9. That apart, it is the say of the teacher that blank signatures were taken from him but he had never tendered his resignation. On this aspect, the Tribunal has also found that the so-called letter of resignation was typed later on which the petitioner had signed. 9. Reference is required to be made to Section 7 of the Act which reads as under. "7. Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools :-If any employee intends to resign his post in any private school. at any time after the appointed date, he shall draw up a letter of resignation in duplicate and sign both the copies of that letter and put the date thereon. He may then forward one copy to the Management by registered post and keep the other copy with him." 10. Rule 40 of the Rules reads as under: "40. Resignation :- (I) A permanent employee may leave service after giving three calender months notice and a nonpermanent employee may leave service after giving one calender month' s notice. The Management may, however, allow an employee to leave service earlier on payment of pay (excluding allowances) for three months, or as the case may be, one month in lieu of notice by the employee. The amount in lieu of notice shall be restricted to the pay or the period by which the notice period falls short. (2) If any Management allows an employee to leave service earlier either without due notice or without making payment of pay in lieu of notice as specified in sub-rule (I), a proportionate amount of pay in lieu of notice shall be deducted from the grant due to the school concerned. (3) An employee entitled to vacation shall not give notice of resignation during the vacation or so as to cover any part of the vacation. The notice of resignation shall not be given within a month after the beginning of the first term of the year." 11. So far as the aforesaid provision is concerned, the statute provides that a management cannot take undue advantage by compelling a teacher to give resignation either by force or by giving any type of inducement. The notice of resignation shall not be given within a month after the beginning of the first term of the year." 11. So far as the aforesaid provision is concerned, the statute provides that a management cannot take undue advantage by compelling a teacher to give resignation either by force or by giving any type of inducement. There is safeguard provided in the Act and with an object to see that in a given case the management may not pressurise the teacher to give resignation and as to whether in a given case the so-called resignation is misused by the management and for that purpose safeguards have been provided in the statute in the case of resignation. It is not in dispute that in the present case the resignation has not been given as prescribed under Section 7 of the act read with Rule 40 of the Rules. This aspect has also been considered by the Tribunal in detail. At this stage, the learned counsel Mr. Joshi has relied upon the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in the case of Talini Imadaddiah [2005(3) ALL MR 354] (supra). It is true that the learned single Judge has found that a resignation can be tendered in person and if resignation is not sent by registered post cannot be said to be an illegal resignation. In the said matter resignation was tendered by a teacher which was to take effect from the future date that was the intervening vacation. The single Judge has found that merely because notice covers part of the vacation, it would not vitiate the resignation itself as the vacation period was intended to be excluded from being included in the notice period. It is not in dispute in that case the notice period covered three months. The learned Judge observed in para 7 as under: "Mr. Kudle, learned counsel for the respondent, further submitted that the resignation is contrary to Rule 48, sub-rule (3), which reads as follows: (3) An employee entitled to vacation shall not give notice of resignation during the vacation or so as to cover any part of the vacation. The notice of resignation shall not be given within a month after the beginning of the first term of the year. According to the learned counsel, since a vacation intervened between 18-12-1990 and the resignation was intended to be effective from June 1991. The notice of resignation shall not be given within a month after the beginning of the first term of the year. According to the learned counsel, since a vacation intervened between 18-12-1990 and the resignation was intended to be effective from June 1991. the notice of resignation covered a part of the vacation and is, therefore, illegal. It is obvious that Rule 40 is intended for the benefit of the management as has been held by this Court in N.J.B, Ashram Vs. Rajendra, 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 909 . I am in agreement with that view. Moreover, sub-rule (3) is intended to avoid curtailing the notice period. It is intended to exclude the vacation period from being included in the notice period, Rule 40 itself provides for the consequence that would follow if the notice period is shorter than three months. I am of view that merely because the notice covers a part of the vacation, it would not vitiate the resignation itself in a case such as the present one. In the present case, it makes no difference." 12. It is true that in a given case court on considering the evidence on record may come to the conclusion that if the resignation is not sent by registered post, that itself may not be treated as a conclusive proof for coming to the conclusion that such resignation is not valid. However, in the instant case, it is the consistent case of the teacher that he had never resigned. After the so-called resignation in fact he has signed the muster roll. He made attempts to resume duty which aspect has been considered by the Tribunal by considering the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that in the present case three months notice period was not taken care in the resignation. Therefore, while considering the case of the respondent, whether it was a genuine resignation or not, the court can certainly consider the provisions of Section 7 of the Act read with rule 40 which may come to the aid of such a teacher in case if he is able to place other evidence on record that the resignation was not genuine. Mr. Joshi has fairly submitted that it is not his argument that Section 7 of the act and Rule 40 of the rules may be treated as redundant as it is still there in the statute book. Mr. Joshi has fairly submitted that it is not his argument that Section 7 of the act and Rule 40 of the rules may be treated as redundant as it is still there in the statute book. Considering the said aspect. in the light of the facts of this case and in the light of the evidence of the respondent that he had never tendered resignation on his own volition and that it was not a voluntary resignation at all. The Tribunal also rightly found that when the respondent had served for more than four years, there was no reason for him to tender resignation. Considering the aforesaid aspect. in my view. this is not a case in which the well reasoned order of the Tribunal is required to be disturbed by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I. therefore. find no substance in any of the arguments of Mr. Joshi. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.