Holding

A resignation under Section 114A of the Delhi School Education Act, once accepted within the prescribed 30‑day period, is effective and cannot be withdrawn thereafter, even if the employee seeks to withdraw before the relief date, and the alleged withdrawal letter not being received renders the withdrawal ineffective.

Summary

The case concerned a Sanskrit teacher who resigned from Modern School on 17‑03‑1997. The school’s managing committee accepted the resignation on 19‑03‑1997, subject to the Director of Education’s approval, which was not received within the statutory 30‑day period, thereby deemed approved under Section 114A of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The teacher claimed to have withdrawn his resignation by a letter dated 18‑03‑1997 and a telegram dated 14‑05‑1997, but the High Court’s single judge found the withdrawal letter never received and dismissed the writ. A Division Bench reversed, holding that because the teacher was to be relieved on 17‑06‑1997 he could withdraw his resignation before that date, making the acceptance issue moot. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held that acceptance of resignation becomes effective once communicated within 30 days, and once accepted it cannot be withdrawn even if the relief date is later; the alleged withdrawal was not received, so the resignation stood. The appeal was allowed and the Division Bench judgment set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the teacher validly withdrew his resignation before the school’s acceptance under Section 114A.
Whether a resignation, once accepted, can be withdrawn before the date of relief but after acceptance.
Effect of the Director of Education’s failure to approve within 30 days under the statutory proviso.
Validity of a managing‑committee resolution passed by circulation.

Legislation cited

Delhi School Education Act, 1973s. 114A
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973s. Rule 114(a)

Subjects

resignationwithdrawal of resignationDelhi School Education ActSection 114Aacceptance of resignationeducational institution employmentservice lawstatutory interpretation

Judgment

MODERN SCHOOL
A 1
v.
SHASHI PAL SHARMA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
B [S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.]

Education/Educational institutions:
Delhi School Education Act, 1973-s. l l 4A-Delhi School
c Education Rules, l 973-s. l l 4(a)-Teacher submitted resignation on
17-03-1997-Resignation accepted by school on l 9-03-l 997~Teacher
directed to be relieved of his duties w.e.f 17-06-1997-Writ petition
by teacher pleading that acceptance ofresignation was illegal as he
had withdrawn the resignation on 18-03-1997-Finding offact by
D
Single Judge of High Court that the purported letter of withdrawal
dated 18-03-1997 was not received by school-Writ petition filed by ,..,.
teacher accordingly dismissed-Division Bench ofHigh Court did not
interfere with such finding offact, however held that as the teacher
was to be relieved w.ef 17-06-1997, he could have withdrawn his
E
resignation on any day prior thereto and as he had withdrawn his
resignation prior to 17-06-1997, the question of acceptance of his
resignation by school did not arise-Propriety of-Held, not proper-
Acceptance ofthe resignation was not made effective from any future
date-Resignation having been accepted, only because the teacher was
F
to be relieved w. ef 17-06-1997 that did not mean that even thereafter
it was open to him to withdraw his resignation-In fact, if the letter
dated 18-03-1997 is excluded.from consideration, the teacher had not
withdrawn his resignation at all-Service Law-Resignation-
Withdrawal of
G
First Respondent, teacher, submitted his resignation to
Appellant school on 17-03-1997. The resignation was accepted by
the Managing Committee of Appellant school on 19-03-1997 vide a
resolution passed through circulation. By a subsequent letter,
H Appellant informed First Respondent about the acceptance of his
76
_J
MODERN SCHOOL v. SHASHI PAL SHARMA 77

resignation. In terms of the said letter, First Respondent was to be A
>
relieved w.e.f. 17-06-1997. On receipt of the said letter, First
Respondent sent letter dated 15-05-1997 alongwith a letter dated
18-03-1997, indicating withdrawal ofresignation, as also a telegram
dated 14-05-1997, and on that ground contending that the
acceptance of his resignation was illegal and invalid. Subsequently, B
First Respondent filed a writ petition.
A Single Judge of the High Court on perusal of the original
_J records of Appellant school arrived at the finding that the purported
letter dated 18-03-1997 was never received by Appellant-school and
accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Division Bench of the High c
Court did not interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Single
Judge regarding the purported letter dated 18-03-1997, however, set
aside the order of the Single Judge holding that as the First
Respondent was to be relieved with effect from 17-06-1997, he could I

have withdrawn his resignation on any day prior thereto and as he D
had withdrawn his resignation prior to 17-06-1997, the question of
acceptance of his resignation by the Appellant did not arise. Hence
the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court E
HELD:l.1. The terms and conditions of the service of the First
Respondent are governed by the provisions of the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. If resignation
is submitted by an employee of a recognised school, it is obligatory
on the part of the Managing Committee of the school to accept the F
same within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the letter.
(Para 13] (84-E-F)

1.2. The Managing Committee of the appellant-School accepted
the resignation submitted by the First Respondent on 19-03-1997.
G
Acceptance of the said resignation was, however, subject to the
approval of the Director of Education. The Director of Education
did not communicate his decision in regard to approval or refusal
thereof within a period of30 days from the date ofreceipt of the said
letter and in that view of the matter, subject of course to the
H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A withdrawal of the resignation by the concerned employee, the
approval would be deemed to have been accorded.
[Para 14] [84-G, H; 85-A]
1.3. Resignation submitted by the First Respondent could be
withdrawn by him before its acceptance. Such acceptance of
B resignation was to be made within a period of one month. As
acceptance of the resignation of the First Respondent was
communicated to him within a period of30 days, the same would take
its effect in terms thereof. [Paras 16 and 20] (85-C; 87-F-G]
C 1.4. It is not a case where acceptance of the resignation was
made effective from a future date. Resignation of the First
Respondent having been accepted, only he was to be relieved from
17.06.1997. The purport of Section 114A of the Act is that in terms
thereof, resignation was to be accepted within a period of 30 days.
D In view of the aforementioned statutory provision, only because the
First Respondent was to be relieved with effect from 17.06.1997 the
same would not mean that even thereafter it was open to the First
Respondent to withdraw his resignation. In fact, if the
aforementioned letter dated 18.03.1997 is excluded from
E consideration, he had not withdrawn his resignation at all.
[Para 17] [85-E,.G]
1.5. In terms of the telegram dated 14.05.1997, the First
Respondentdid not withdraw his resignation. He merely purported
to have communicated that the same stood withdrawn on the next
F day of his submission of resignatio~, namely, 18.03.1997. If the
. contention of the First Respondent that he had withdrawn his
resignation on 18.03.1997 is found to be incorrect, as has been held
by the Single Judge of the High Court, receipt of the said letter by
itself would not amount to withdrawal of his resignation before it is
G accepted. [Para 18] (86-C, D]
Srikantha SM v. Mis. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., [2005] 8 SCC
314, held inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4343 of
H 2007.
-~
I
MODERNSCHOOLv. SHASHIPALSHARMA[SINHA,J.] 79

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2005 of the High Court 'A
of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 354 of2003.
Anip Sachthey, Mohit Paul, Arijit Prasad and Kamal Mehta for the
Appellant.
K. Ramamoorthy, Hari Shankar, K. Vikas Singh Jamgra, Varona B
Bhandari Gugnani, D. S. Mehra and Anil Katiyar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
_J
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant herein is a school recognized and governed under the
c
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short,_'the Act') and the rules
framed thereunder. First Respondent herein had, at all material times, been
working as a Sanskrit teacher, in the appellant school. On or about
14.03.1997, his wife made a c¢mplaint to the Principal of the school
D
informing that the First Respondent had made fake coupons meant to be
-"411
used at the fate of the school held on 15 .12.1996. Several other serious
allegations were made by the first respondent's wife against him. He
tendered his resignation purported to be on the ground of having some
domestic problems. The said letter of resignation reads thus :
E
"Because of some urgent and serious domestic problems it is
difficult for me to continue serving the school. I request you to kindly
accept this my letter of resignation.
Since my circumstances require me to take such a major step, I '
request your indulgence in making my situation somewhat easier F
by acceding to my following requests:-
(A) My gratuity and other dues including earned leave may be
encashed and disbursed quickly.
(1J
(B) The privilege of students that my children have enjoyed in
Modem School at no cost to me may be continued.
(C) My association with the school particularly through my books
being used by the middle school for Sanskrit may be continued.
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A (D) In case my benefit accrues to me for the past period on account
of revision of salaries lµTiving out of the pay commission or the
school management, the same may be granted to me in the due
course.
(E) Any fallout of my domestic problems and any attempts to malign
B
me may please be ignored and not be allowed to effect upon my
children"
3. Indisputably, acceptance of resignation by the appellant from a
teacher is governed by Section 114A of Act, 1973 which reads as under: --L
c "1l4A. Resignation:- The resignation submitted by an employee
of a recognized school shall be accepted within a period of thirty
days from the date of receipt of the resignation by the managing
committee with the approval of the Director :
D Provided that if no approval is received within 30 days, then such
approval would be deemed to have been received after the expiry
of the said period." ;.-

4. The resignation tendered by the first respondent was accepted
by the appellant and forwarded to the Director of Education in terms of
E
its letter dated 09.03.1997, stating:
"Enclosed please find the copy of the letter of resignation submitted
by Mr. S.P. Sharma, a teacher of our school.
~
Since we need to advertise and get a substitute teacher needs to
F be recruited immediately. We have accepted his resignation subject
to your approval. Since he is teaching class X Board classes, we
need to find a replacement at the very earliest in the interest of
students right from the start of the new session. A replacement
cannot be legal unless the post falls vacant. Hence, we request your
G indulgence and co-operation for an immediate approval."
~
5. As no order of approval was received by the appellant from the
Director of Education as w~ required under Section 114A, it, by its letter
dated 13.05.1997, informed the said authority that they were accepting
H the resignation and going ahead with fresh recruitment as per the Act and
I
-~
I

MODERNSCHOOLv. SHASHIPALSHARMA[SINHA,J.] 81

'>- the Rules. By a letter of the said date, acceptance of his resignation was A
communicated to the First Respondent, stating :
"This is to infonn you that we accept with regret your resignation
letter dated 17th March, 1997. You have our sympathies for the
domestic problems you face.
B
We shall do whatever we can do help your children with their
education. You shall be relieved w.e.f. June 17, 1997 after the three
months notice period which expires on June 16, 1997.
You are requested to contact the schooloffice after June 16, 1997
on any working day during working hours to settle all full and final c
dues."
6. On receipt of the said letter, the First Respondent by his letter
dated 15.05.1997 and annexing therewith a purported letter withdrawing
his resignation dated 18.03.1997, a letter of the Director of Education D
regarding procedure for compliance of Rule 114(a) of Delhi School
--· Education Rules 1973 as also a telegram dated 14.5.1997 contended that
acceptance ofhis offer of resignation was illegal and invalid. The Education
Officer of the Government of Delhi also contended that the fact that the
First Respondent had withdrawn his resignation on 18.3.1997 was not E
brought to the notice of the Managing Committee and the purported
resolution adopted by it through circulation was not in accordance with
law. Appellant was, therefore, advised to hold the meeting of the Managing
Committee in future in accordance with the directions of the Department.
Purported refusal to accord approval by the State was resented to by
If
the appellant herein in tenns of letter dated 26.06.1997 addressed to the
Education Officer, Directorate of Education, stating :
"We are surprised that our letter seeking approval of the resignation
of Shri S.P. Sharma which was dated 19.3.1997 has been 1

acknowledged by you on 17.6.1997. We are unable to appreciate G
the reason for this delay.
We are surprised to note that you have purported not to accord
approval for the acceptance of the resignation of Shri Sharma due
to the reasons enumerated in your communication. As regard, the H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I 0 S.C.R.

A first reason, the school did not receive any withdrawal of the
resignation of Shri Shanna on 18.3 .1997 and since there was no
receipt of any letter of withdrawal of the resignation, there was no
necessity of bringing this to the notice of the Managing Committee.
A subsequent communication enclosing a so-called withdrawal of
B resignation letter was sent to the school but by that time the
Managing Committee of the school had already accepted the
resignation and the said letter, if at all, is an after-thought.
As regards the second reason, we are surprised to note that
the resolution of the managing Committee passed through
c circulation is not valid. Time and again resolutions have been passed
through circulation by our Managing Committee and you have
accorded approval, but it appears that now your stand is changing.
In the light of the aforesaid, we would request you to withdraw
D your communication dated 17.6.1997."
7. First Respondent thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court ~
of Delhi questioning acceptance of his purported resignation. A learned
Single Judge of the said court by an order dated 01.04.2003 dismissed
E the same.
8. We may notice that in the said Writ proceedings, the Appellant
herein raised a contention that it had never received the purported letter
dated 18.03.1997 from the First Respondent withdrawing his resignation.
It was furthermore contended that the telegram which was sent by the r
F First Respondent to the appellant cannot be construed to be one whereby
the resignation submitted by him can be said to have been withdrawn.
9. The learned Single Judge of the High Court called for the original
records of the school, perused the same and opined that the purported
G receipt of the letter by the office of the appellant is not correct, stating :
"The specific stand of the teacher is that he submitted his letter
withdrawing the resignation letter on 18.3.1997 in the school which
was received by the school authority by giving a diary number
which is 1715of18.3.1997. I had called for the original dispatch
H register from the school authority in order to examine the veracity
tit/(_
i
MODERN SCHOOL v. SHASHI PAL SHARMA [SINHA, J.] 83

of the said statement pursuant to which the same was placed before A
me. The said diary No.1715 of the dispatch register relates to some
other correspondence and not that of the particular letter stated
to have been submitted by the Respondent No.4 under the said
number. It is interesting to note that the said entry is of one Shri
C.S. Sharma which is also dated 18.3.1997 and the petitioner is B
seeking to take advantage of the said entry because of similarity
in the surname. Besides, the previous day the teacher submitted
his resignation giving urgent and serious domestic problems as the
reason for submitting the resignation and on the very next day he
allegedly submitted another application withdrawing the letter of c
resignation stating that his domestic problems which forced him to
take a drastic step like submitting a resignation had been solved
overnight. It appears that the said letter is made out by the
Respondent No.4 in order to show that he had withdrawn the
resignation letter even before it was accepted by the Principal. By D
that he also could persuade the Director of Education not to accord
approval to the acceptance of the resignation which is established
from the letter of the Director of Education dated 17.6.1997 ."
10. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated
01.04.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, an E
intra-court appeal was preferred by the First Respondent herein and by
reason of the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2005, a Division Bench
of the High Court allowed the same holding that as the First Respondent
was to be relieved with effect from 17.06.1997, he could have withdrawn
his resignation on any day prior thereto and as he had withdrawn his F
resignation prior to 17.06.1997, the question of acceptance of his
resignation by the appellant did not arise. In regard to the contention of
the appellant that the letter dated 18.03.1997 whereupon the First
Respondent relied u1xm, was a forged document, the Division Bench held:
G
"Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
appellant had fabricated the letter dated 18.03 .1997. In our opinion,
this fact is disputed by the appellant and it is not for this court to
go into this disputed question of fact in writ jurisdiction. At any
event, since we have not relied on the alleged letter dated
H'
84 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A 18.3.1997, the same has no relevance."
11. Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned COWlsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that having regard to the finding of fact arrived
at by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of the High Court
B committed a manifest error in passing the impu.gned judgment.
12. Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted :
(i) Having regard to the circular letter issued by the Education
C Department of the Government of Delhi, purported acceptance of
resignation by the members of the Managing Committee was wholly illegal;
(ii) The State Government having not granted its approval, the
impugned judgment should not be interfered with.
D (iii) As the letter of resignation had been withdrawn by the First
Respondent, the High Court rightly relied upon a decision of this Court
in Srikantha S.M v. Mis. Bharath Earth A/overs Ltd, [2005] 8 SCC 'r
314 ; JT (2005) 12) SC 465.
13. The terms and conditions of the service of the First Respondent
E are governed by the provisions of the said Act and the rules framed
thereWlder. We have noticed hereinbefore that if resignation is submitted
!Jy an employee of a recognised school, it is obligatory on the part of the
Managing Committee of the school to accept the same within a period of
30 days from the receipt of the letter. Such acceptance must be preceded
F by the approval of the Director in this behalf Proviso appended to Section
114A of the Act, however, raises a legal fiction that in the event no
approval is received within the period of 30 days, the same would be
deemed to have been received.
14. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that legalities apart, the
G Managing Committee of the appellant-School accepted the resignation
submitted by the First Respondent on 19.03 .1997. Acceptance of the
said resignation was, however, subject to the approval of the Director of
Education. It is not in dispute that the Director of Education did not
communicate his decision in regard to approval or refusal thereof within
H
MODERN SCHOOL v. SHASHI PAL SHARMA [SINHA, J.] 85

a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said letter and in that A
view of the matter, subject of course to the withdrawal of the resignation
by the concerned employee, the approval would be deemed to have been
accorded.
15. Two principal questions, therefore, arise for our consideration
herein namely, (i) whether the First Respondent has legally withdrawn his B
.letter of resignation; and (ii) whether the First Respondent could withdraw
his resignation prior to 16.06.1997.
-l 16. Resignation submitted by the First Respondent could be
withdrawn by him before its acceptance. Such acceptance of resignation c
was to be made within a period of one month. Within the said period
itself, the Director of Education should have accorded or refused to accord
his approval. We have noticed hereinbefore, the findings of the learned
Single Judge of the High Court holding categorically that the purported
letter dated 18.03.1997 was never received by the authorities of the D
school. The said finding of fact has not been interfered with by the Division
Bench of the High Court.
17. Once the resignation of the First Respondent had validly been
accepted, the question which would arise for consideration is as to whether
the same could be done before 17.06.1997. It is not a case where E
acceptance of the resignation was made effective from a future date.
Resignation of the First Respondent having been accepted, only he was
to be relieved from 17.06.1997. We have noticed hereinbefore the
purport of Section 114A of the Act, in terms whereof resignation was to
be accepted within a period of 30 days. In view of the aforementioned F
statutory proyision, in our opinion, only because the First Respondent was
to be relieved with effect from 17.06.1997 the same would not mean that
even thereafter it was open to the First Respondent to withdraw his
resignation. In fact, if the aforementioned letter dated 18.03.1997 is
excluded from consideration, he had not withdrawn his resignation at all. G
~ We may at this juncture notice the telegram sent by the First Respondent,
which is as under :
"DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDIA
TELEGRAM H
~
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A X 1850 N-120 NEW DELHI RAJOURI GARDEN 14/5 30/36
PRINCIPAL MODERN SCHOOL VASANT VIHAR NEW
DELHI MY RESIGNATION OF SEVENTEENTH MARCH
1997 WAS DULY WITHDRAWN THE NEXT DAY YOUR
ACCEPTANCE IS NOT ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT IS
B INFRUCTUOUS-S.P. SHAR.l\1A."
18. In terms of the said telegram the First Respondent did not
wifodraw his resignation. He merely purported to have communicated that
the same stood withdrawn on the next day of his submission of resignation,
namely, 18.03.1997. If the contention of the First Respondent that he had
c withdrawn hi.s resignation on 18.03.1997 is found to be incorrect, as has
been held by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our opinion,
receipt of the said letter by itself would not amount to withdrawal of his
resignation before it is accepted. There is no doubt whatsoever that the
Director of Education acted in terms of the representation made by the
D First Respondent that he had withdrawn his resignation. If the same was
factually incorrect, the said authority was obligated in law to communicate
his decision to the school authority within a period of 30 days from the ~
date of communication of the letter of the First Respondent.

E 19. The decision of this Court in Srikantha S.M. (supra), in view
of the factual situation obtaining in the instant case, cannot be said to have
any application whatsoever. In that case even after the purported
acceptance of the resignation of the appellant, he had been granted casual
leave from 05.01.1993 to 13.01.1993 and was informed that he would
be relieved after office hours on 15.01.1993. In the aforementioned fact r-
F
situation obtaining therein, this Court opined :
"26. On the basis of the above decisions, in our opinion, the
learned Counsel for the appellant is right in contending that though
the respondent-Company had accepted the resignation of the
G appellant on 4.1.1993 and was ordered to be relieved on that day,
by a subsequent letter, he was granted casual leave from 5.1.1993 .~

to 13.1.1993. Moreover, he was informed that he would be
relieved after office hours on 15.1.1993. The vinculumjuris,
therefore, in our considered opinion, continued and the relationship
H
MODERN SCHOOL v. SHASHI PAL SHARMA [SINHA, J.] 87

)
of employer and employee did not come to an end on 4.1 .. 1993. A
The relieving order and payment of salary also make it abundantly
clear that he was continued in service of the Company upto
15.1.1993.
27. In affidavit in reply filed by the Company, it was stated that
B
resignation of the appellant was accepted immediately and he was
to be relieved on 4.1.1993. It was because of the request of the
appellant that he was continued upto 15.1.1993. In the affidavit in
rejoinder, the appellant had stated that he reported for duty on
15.1.1993 and also worked on that day. At about 12.00 noon, a
letter was issued to him stating therein that he would be relieved c
at the close of the day. A cheque of Rs. 13,511/- was paid to him
at 17 .30 hrs. The appellant had asserted that he had not received
terminal benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, etc. It is thus
proved that upto 15 .1.1993, the appellant remained in service. If
it is so, in our opinion, as per settled law, the appellant could have D
withdrawn his resignation before that date. It is an admitted fact
~
that a letter of withdrawal of resignation was submitted by the
appellant on 8.1.1993. It was, therefore, on the Company to give
effect to the said letter. By not doing so, the Company has acted
contrary to the law and against the decisions of this Court and hence, E
the action of the Company deserves to be quashed and set aside.
The High Court in our opinion, was in error in not granting relief
to the appellant. Accordingly, the action of the Company as upheld
by the High Court is hereby set aside~''
F
20. As we have noticed hereinbefore, the terms and conditions of
service are governed by the statute and the statutory rules. As acceptance
of the resignation of the First Respondent was communicated to him within
a period of 30 days, the same would take its effect in terms thereof.
21. Reliance placed by Mr. Ramamurthy on the departmental G
r-· instruction dated 17.l 0.1996 is not relevant. The said departmental
instruction reads thus:
"As per provisions of Delhi School Act and Rules, 1973, the
Managing Committee of the school is the appointing autl1ority in
H
,.._ -
\
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A respect of aided and unaided recognized schools. On various {
occasions the Managing Committee has to discharge the statutory
obligation of obtaining approval of the Director of Education to
various proposals by passing a resolution.
Before any proposal is put up before the D.E., for obtaining
B his approval, the individual proposal is to be examined on merits,
which includes scrutiny of the resolution passed by the Managing
Committee.
In the past, it is observed that most of the schools are not +-
c adhering to the approved Scheme of Management. DE nominees
have been provided to all the aided and unaided schools, who are
not invited by the Managing Committee of the schools. In some
cases, 'special invitees' are invited to attend the meeting of the
Managing Committee in contravention to the approved Scheme of
D Management.
All the Managers of aided/unaided schools are therefore,
directed- ,•-
1. to call the meeting of the Managing Committee in accordance
E with the approved Scheme of Management.
2. to invite the DE nominees/advisory board nominees in the
meeting and notice of the meeting should be sent by special
messenger or by Regd. Post only.
3. to incorporate in the body of resolution, the names of members
F
who have attended the meeting of Managing Committee. If the
DE nominee has not attended the meeting, a certificate should
be recorded therein that notice of meeting of Managing
Committee was sent on (Date) by Regd. Post
or by special messenger.
G
4. Resolution should not be passed by circulation among the
·'-'
members."
22. The manner in which the meeting of the Managing Committee
should be called for is a matter governed by the internal rules of the school.
H
MODERNSCHOOLv. SHASHIPALSHARMA[SINHA,J.] 89

The said departmental instructions does not state that any deviation A
therefrom would result in the Resolution passed by the Managing
Committee by circulation, if rendered nullity, the same must be held to be
directory.
23. The Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error B
in passing the impugned judgment, which cannot be sustained and is set
aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.