JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K. Bhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.9, Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.8, Mr. A.S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 and Mr. M. Khataniar, learned counsel for the authorities under the BTC. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Arts) on 25.05.1984 as per the resolution No.2 of the Managing Committee of Uttar Gobardhana High School at Chunbari. The respondent No.9, on the other hand, was appointed as the founder Headmaster of the school and he had been functioning from 01.01.1983. In between the respondent No.9 had resigned from his service as the Headmaster of the school for participating in an election and accordingly, submitted resignation letter dated 15.03.2011 before the President of the Managing Committee of the school. The resignation tendered by the respondent No.9 was accepted by an endorsement dated 16.03.2011. Later on, as per the resolution No.1 dated 16.03.2011 of the Managing Committee of the school, the respondent No.9 was released from his post and in his place by the resolution No.2, the petitioner was allowed to be the In-charge Headmaster. Subsequently, by the resolution No.1 dated 27.03.2011 of the Managing Committee, the petitioner was promoted as the Headmaster and such appointment was approved by the Inspector of Schools, Baksa by his order dated 02.05.2011. Later on, by another resolution being resolution No.1 of the Managing Committee of the School dated 04.07.2011, the respondent No.9 was reinstated as the Headmaster of the school on a humanitarian ground. Subsequent thereto, by the order dated 11.07.2011 of the Inspector of Schools, Baksa, the respondent No.9 was allowed to act as the Headmaster and the period from his date of resignation up to the resolution of the reinstatement i.e. from 16.03.2011 to 10.07.2011 was converted to an extraordinary leave. 3. In this writ petition, it is pointed out that thereafter by the order dated 12.08.2011 of the Inspector of Schools, Baksa, it was concluded that the Managing Committee resolution No.1 dated 04.07.2011, whereby, the respondent No.9 was reinstated was not as per law and accordingly, by referring to an interim order of this Court in WP(C) No.5409 of 2011 dated 28.06.2012, the petitioner was allowed to continue as the Headmaster of the school. In the resultant situation, the respondent No.9 along with the President of the Managing Committee of the school had preferred a writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.6418 of 2012, interalia, seeking the relief that the acts done by the respondent No.9 as the Headmaster of the School be given its due recognition. The said writ petition was given a final consideration by the order dated 07.08.2014 inter alia providing that it having involved disputed questions of fact, the respondent No.1 therein i.e. the Commission Secretary to the Government of Assam, in the Secondary Education Department, to resolve the dispute as expeditiously as possible. 4. Consequent, thereupon the order dated 09.03.2015 of the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department was passed. By the order dated 09.03.2011 it was concluded that the respondent No.9 was reinstated in the post of Headmaster of the school as per the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 04.07.2011 and further, the petitioner was relegated to the post of Senior most teacher. The Secretary to the Government of Assam accepted the aforesaid position and held as such. 5. The order or 09.03.2015 had been assailed in this writ petition. It is stated that pursuant to the order dated 09.03.2015, the service of the respondent No.9 was provincialisaed but by an interim order dated 17.06.2016 the same was kept in abeyance. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The core contention of Mr. K. Bhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.9 having resigned from his service as the Headmaster of the school and the same being accepted, the subsequent resolution of the Managing Committee of the school dated 04.07.2011 and the resultant order dated 11.07.2011 of the Inspector of Schools, Baksa, approving the said resolution of reinstatement and converting the period of absence between the date of resignation and the date of reinstatement to be extraordinary relief, are contrary to the provisions of law. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.9, on the other hand, by referring to Section 13 of the Assam Non-Governmental Educational Institutions (Regulation and Management) Act, 2006, contends that the school in question being a venture educational institution, the Managing Committee has the absolute discretion to take back the respondent No.9 in service and also to convert the period of absence between the date of resignation and the re-instatement to that of extraordinary leave. 9. In view of the aforesaid contention of the rival parties, the core issue for determination would be as to what is the effect of a resignation under the service jurisprudence and whether in view of Section 13 of the Act if 2006, any such absolute discretion is vested on the Managing Committee of a venture educational institution to reinstate an employee and convert his period of absence between the date of resignation and reinstatement to be on extraordinary leave. Although, the school in question may be a venture educational institution and it would be a discretion on the Managing Committee in dealing with the service conditions of its employees but at the same time such exercise of discretionary power would also have to satisfy the basic provisions of the law as well as confirm to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A power may be discretionary but the same cannot be an unbridled and unfettered power so as to enable the authority to act in any manner it may feel like and justify the same by taking the plea that it has the discretion to do so. Resignation is a concept under the service jurisprudence, having its own essential characteristics. One of the characteristics of resignation is that there is a severance of the employer and employee relationship once a resignation is tendered and accepted. Meaning thereby that the employee who had tendered his resignation and was accepted no longer continues to be an employee. 10. It is another aspect that the consequent school being a venture educational institution the Managing Committee of the School has the discretion to take back an employee who had already resigned from the employment. Meaning thereby that the employee who had tendered his resignation and was accepted no longer continues to be an employee. 10. It is another aspect that the consequent school being a venture educational institution the Managing Committee of the School has the discretion to take back an employee who had already resigned from the employment. But, such reinstatement would also have to confirm to the basic characteristics of the concept of resignation, meaning thereby that from the date of tendering and acceptance of the resignation up to the date when he stood reinstated, the concerned person will not be an employee for the intervening period. 11. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.9 raises a contention that the Managing Committee of the venture educational institution having the discretion to act in the interest of the institution can convert the period of absence between the date of acceptance of the resignation and the date of reinstatement to an extraordinary leave. 12. When a question was asked as to under what provision of law, the Managing Committee can so act, Mr. Choduhury, learned Senior Counsel relies upon the provision of Section 13 of the Act of 2006 which, interalia, provides that the Managing Committee shall have control over the appointment of the employees to substantiate that it can exercise its jurisdiction to convert the intervening period to that of an extraordinary leave. 13. The said contention of Mr. Choudhury, learned Senor Counsel for the respondent No.9, that the provision of Section 13 of the Act of 2006 enables the Managing Committee to convert the period between the date of resignation and the date of subsequent reinstatement to be an extraordinary leave is unacceptable. As already held, a person does not remain an employee from the date of acceptance of the resignation up to the date of reinstatement. Therefore as the concerned person does not remain an employee, there cannot be a question of the intervening period be converted to that of an extraordinary leave. The concept of extraordinary leave is applicable only in respect of an employee to be granted by the employer but if the person concerned is not an employee for any given period, no discretion is vested upon the employer to even grant an extraordinary leave. The concept of extraordinary leave is applicable only in respect of an employee to be granted by the employer but if the person concerned is not an employee for any given period, no discretion is vested upon the employer to even grant an extraordinary leave. In fact upon a resignation being accepted, it cannot be a case of reinstatement and rather it would a case of reemployment. 14. The Court is unable to accept the said contention for the reason that, during the intervening period from the date of acceptance of the resignation up to the date of reinstatement the respondent No.9 was not an employee and the essential ingredients of a resignation would come into place. 15. In the circumstances as during the period between the date of accepting the resignation and the subsequent date of reinstatement, the respondent No.9 was not an employee, therefore, the Managing Committee of the venture educational institution could not have exercised its power under Section 13 of the Act of 2006, to convert the period of not being in employment to that of an extra ordinary leave, by taking a stand that it has control over the appointment of the employees. Accordingly, the Court is unable to accept the legality and validity of the order dated 11.07.2011 of the Inspector of Schools, Baksa, wherein, the period between 16.03.2011 to 10.07.2011 i.e. the period between the date of acceptance of the resignation and the date of reinstatement was converted to an extraordinary leave by the Managing Committee of the School, which in turn was approved by the Inspector. As already concluded, although the Managing Committee may have the discretion to reinstate an employee who had earlier resigned, but for all purpose such engagement would have to be construed to be effective from the date of the reinstatement/ re-employment and the past service prior to the resignation nor the intervening period from the date of resignation up to the date of reinstatement/re-employment can be taken into account for any purpose to render it to be a continuous employment. 16. 16. As the services of the respondent No.9 was provincialised as the Headmaster of the school by taking his entire period of engagement from the date of the initial appointment prior to the resignation, the Court is of the view that the same cannot be make the basis by the respondent authorities for the purpose of his provincialisation. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order as regards the provincialisation as between the petitioner and the respondent No.9, by arriving at a conclusion as to who between the two would be appropriate for the purpose of provincialisation under the law. But the said conclusion is to be arrived by not taking into consideration of the period between the date of initial appointment of the respondent No.9 up to the date on which he was reinstated/re-employed as Headmaster. 17. It is also provided that as the present claim for provincialisation is under the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, the authority shall determine the interseclaim between the petitioner and the respondent No.9 and deemed it to be a process under the Act of 2011. 18. But, however, if the result thereof is against either the petitioner or the respondent No.9, the person against whom the result goes shall be given a due consideration under Section 13(6) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institution) Act, 2017 (in short ‘the Act of 2017’). It is also provided that as the respondent No.9 is due to superannuate from service within the month of December 2018, in the event there is a requirement to consider his case under Section 13(6) of the Act of 2017 it be positively done by the respondent authorities before he superannuates from his service and the final order thereon be passed. It is understood the process under section 13(6) of the Act of 2017 is already on and the respondent authorities shall take up the claim of the respondent No.9, if required, with due urgency so that he can get the benefit which he may be otherwise be entitled. In terms of the writ petition stands allowed to the extend indicated above. No order as to cost.