JUDGMENT : G.R UDHWANI, J. The petitioner has made, inter alia, following prayers in this petition. “7(A) A writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash and set aside the orders dated 16.07.2005 as well as 27.08.2007 passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e District Education Officer and further directing the respondent no. 3 to accept the application of the petitioner dated 21.02.2005 and toe treat the petitioner retired with effect from 21.02.2005 and to give all retiral benefits to the petitioner; 2. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher employed with the respondent no. 2 Bhavna Education Trust with effect from 25.04.1983 For certain acts of misconduct, petitioner was departmentally proceeded against which eventually resulted into termination of his services. The petitioner was unsuccessful in an appeal before the Tribunal. He therefore, filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12638 of 2004 wherein on 07.02.2005, following order was passed: “1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned AGP Mr. Hasurkar waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. At the joint request of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today. 2. While issuing notice dated 1.10.04, this Court had recorded the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to submit a letter of resignation/application for voluntary retirement which may be considered by the authorities. 3. It appears that after 17 years of service, the services of the petitioner who was working as a Teacher came to be terminated pursuant to departmental inquiry. This order was also upheld by the Education Tribunal. The counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the long service put in by the petitioner and the allegations against the petitioner which do not include any charge of financial irregularity or any charge involving moral turpitude, the imposition of penalty which would wipe out the entire service of the petitioner would be harsh and excessive. The counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the long service put in by the petitioner and the allegations against the petitioner which do not include any charge of financial irregularity or any charge involving moral turpitude, the imposition of penalty which would wipe out the entire service of the petitioner would be harsh and excessive. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner would like to approach the authorities for permitting him to resign from service or tender his voluntary retirement as may be permissible under the rules which would ensure that the past service put in by the petitioner is saved for the limited purpose of retiral and other benefits. 4. In view of the above submissions, it is provided that the petitioner shall approach the respondent No. 1 & 2 by making appropriate application for accepting his resignation/voluntary retirement. If such an application is made within a period of two weeks from today, learned counsel Shri Gandhi assures this Court that the school authorities shall process the same and take a decision sympathetically and forward the proposal to the District Education Officer as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than two months from the date of receipt of such an application. Upon receipt of such a proposal from the school authorities, the District Education Officer shall take decision regarding granting approval to the same within a period of two months thereafter. The authorities shall take their respective decisions unmindful of the earlier order of the Disciplinary Authority as upheld by the Tribunal. If the decision at any stage is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to take such recourse as may be available under the law. With these directions, the petition is allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.” 3. Pursuant to the said order, the matter was placed for consideration in office of the District Education Officer, Ahmedabad after following necessary procedure, wherein the District Education Officer noted that the petitioner was short of two years one month and 26 days against the requisite length of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It was also noted that the school management was not willing to accept the resignation of the petitioner. It was also noted that the school management was not willing to accept the resignation of the petitioner. On petitioner's approaching this Court once again in Special Civil Application No. 16219 of 2006, the following order came to be passed on 21.11.2006 “1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. N.V Gandhi appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and learned A.G.P Mr. Dabhi appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 State. 2. In the present petition, the order passed by the District Education Officer Annexure ‘A’ Page 13 dated 16th July 2005 is challenged by the petitioner. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submitted that District Education Officer has not properly appreciated the observations made by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12638 of 2004 dated 7th February 2005. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submitted that this Court has passed the order with an observation which is quoted as under: “… The Authorities shall take their respective decisions unmindful of the earlier order of the Disciplinary Authority as upheld by the Tribunal…” 4. In view of aforesaid observation, the District Education Officer shall have to consider independently irrespective of earlier dismissal, the case of the petitioner for retirement benefits including pension. But, instead of District Education Officer has come to the conclusion that unless and until School Management is agreed to accept resignation, petitioner is not entitled the pensionary benefit because not completing 20 years services as required. But, there is less service of four years. The said decision wherein District Education Officer has ignored the aforesaid observation and therefore, it is directed to the District Education Officer to reconsider the matter in light of the aforesaid observations made by this Court and then to pass appropriate reasoned order whether while not to take into account the dismissal which has been confirmed by the Tribunal independently whether petitioner is entitled the pensionary benefits or not and to pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receiving the copy of the said order and communicate the same to the petitioner and respondent? School Management immediately. 5. School Management immediately. 5. However, it is also made clear that resignation which had already been tendered by the petitioner to the School Management has been accepted by the School Management and forwarded to the District Education Officer, therefore, it is further directed to District Education Officer to consider this aspect of resignation also and if on that basis, petitioner is entitled the pensionary benefits then to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law. 6. In view of above observations and direction, present petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct service is permitted. 7. However, in case, if, ultimate decision of the respondent-authority is against the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law.” 4. In pursuant to the said order, the matter was again placed for reconsideration before the District Education Officer. This time, the management seems to have come out with a reformed plea stating that the school being managed by minority is exempt from the relevant rules applicable to the non minority institutions. The District Education Officer accepted the contention and ruled that no approval for termination of the employee of the school was necessary for minority institution. He also ruled that the petitioner fell short of twenty years qualifying service for pension on retirement/resignation. It is this order which is brought under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to two orders passed by the High Court in different petitions and submitted that the factum of petitioner's termination was required to be ignored. The learned counsel submitted that despite specific observations in the order dated 21.11.2006 of this Court in para 5 that the resignation tendered by the petitioner has been accepted by the school management, the school management persisted with the stand that the termination against the petitioner was effected and the management was not subject to the rules applicable to non minority institutions. It was argued that before the District Education Officer, the subject matter was totally misconceived. Learned counsel submitted that the subject matter was the consideration of the case of the petitioner for the pensionary benefits as indicated in the two orders passed by the High Court in different petitions. 6. It was argued that before the District Education Officer, the subject matter was totally misconceived. Learned counsel submitted that the subject matter was the consideration of the case of the petitioner for the pensionary benefits as indicated in the two orders passed by the High Court in different petitions. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent school management would support the impugned order and contend that the rules applicable to non minority institutions were not applicable to the minority institutions and therefore, against the termination of the service of the petitioner no approval was required from District Education Officer. It was therefore, contended that the impugned order is legal and valid requiring no interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the termination order of the petitioner in absence of challenge is, accepted by the petitioner and therefore in view of break in service by termination, the petitioner's service fell short of requisite twenty years qualifying service under Rules 48 and 49 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. It was argued that unless the order of termination was set aside, the management could not have overridden the effect of termination order by mere acceptance of the resignation. 8. The facts are not in disputed. It is noticed that in the two orders passed by this Court in two different petitions, filed by the petitioner, the case was required to be considered without mindful to the earlier order of the disciplinary authority as upheld by the Tribunal. It is also noticed that in absence of the challenge to any of the two orders passed by the High Court, the school management could not have taken a contrary stand to what has been observed in the orders. 9. The order dated 21.11.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 16219 of 2006 indicates that resignation already tendered by the petitioner to the management has been accepted by the school management and forwarded to the District Education Officer. Thus the controversy regarding resignation of the petitioner was put an end by above observations of this Court. The said observations would also indicate that the petitioner is deemed to have resigned from the date of tendering of the resignation. Thus the controversy regarding resignation of the petitioner was put an end by above observations of this Court. The said observations would also indicate that the petitioner is deemed to have resigned from the date of tendering of the resignation. It has been clearly observed in the two orders of this High Court that the termination is not required to be taken into consideration while processing the case of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that even in absence of challenge the termination order as confirmed by Tribunal, the case for pension of the petitioner can be considered. Therefore no substance is found in the argument advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that in absence of the challenge to the termination order, the management was justified in raising the issue regarding termination of petitioner's services. 10. It seems that the school management, despite this Court's observation in above petition in relation to the above resignation was bent upon to ensure the rejection of the resignation of the petitioner for one reason or the another and therefore, the stand regarding non applicability of the rules for seeking approval on termination which was never taken before this Court during pendency of two writ petitions referred to above came to be taken before the District Education Officer. In the opinion of this Court, such stand of the management cannot be countenanced. 11. The resultant effect of the above discussion is that in view of the observations made by this Court in 21.11.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 16219 of 2006 the resignation is deemed to have been accepted even in absence of specific office order for its acceptance by the management. Thus acceptance of resignation would mean that the petitioner was in service on that day, though notionally. Consequently, the District Education Officer would be under an obligation to process the matter for pension as if the resignation of the petitioner is accepted by the management. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.07.2005 as well as 27.08.2007 passed by respondent no. 3 District Education Officer are quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.07.2005 as well as 27.08.2007 passed by respondent no. 3 District Education Officer are quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 3 is directed to proceed to process the petitioner's application dated 21.02.2005 as if the resignation is accepted by the school management and petitioner was in service on that day, though notionally. The decision shall be rendered within six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. 13. If the petitioner is found eligible for pensionary benefits, the same shall be made available to the petitioner with the arrears within next six weeks from the date of the decision rendered by the District Education Officer.