VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)

1. I have taken on record photocopy of the affidavit dated 8.10.2013 filed by the respondent-school represented by respondent nos. 1 and 2. Original be placed on record within one week from today.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Smt. Lovika Jain seeking the relief of payment of salary to her by the respondent-school from 17.5.2009 to 31.7.2009 Payment of this salary is claimed for the three months period provided under the second proviso to Rule 96(9) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

3. The facts of the case are that petitioner was working as PGT (Psychology) with the respondent-school. Petitioner vide letter dated 1.5.2009 submitted her resignation stating that she would like to resign w.e.f 1.5.2009 on account of the fact that she had been invited by an International School to start their psychology department. In this letter dated 1.5.2009 tendering resignation, petitioner also stated that she will serve her notice time period.

4. The issue in the present case revolves around the interpretation of the second and third provisos of Rule 96(9) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and therefore the said two provisos alongwith the main sub-Rule (9) of Rule 96 is reproduced below:-

“Rule 96(9) No managing committee shall entertain any application for employment from a person who is already serving as teacher in a recognized school, whether aided or not, unless the application from such person is duly forwarded by the manager of the school in which such applicant is serving:

Provided that every application from such person shall be forwarded by the manager, but any application in excess of three in a year shall not be forwarded unless the managing committee, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing so directs:

Provided further that no such teacher shall be relieved of his duties except after the expiry of a period of:

(i) three months, in the case of a permanent teacher, from the date on which notice of intimation to leave the school is given; and

(ii) one month, in the case of a teacher who is not permanent, from the date on which notice of intimation to leave the school is given.

Provided also where the managing committee is in a position to provide for a substitute for such teacher earlier than the respective period specified in the foregoing proviso, the managing committee may relieve the teacher of his duties on the expiry of such earlier period.”

5. Whereas the petitioner contends that every teacher on giving notice of intimation to leave the school is entitled to three months' pay in terms of second proviso to Rule 96(9), the respondent-school relies upon the third proviso to state that if a substitute can be provided earlier than the period specified in the second proviso of three months, managing committee is entitled to relieve the teacher before the expiry of three months.

6. At the outset, I may state that there is no provision in the Rules except Rule 96(9) and as per which a permanent employee like the petitioner can seek three months salary after giving a notice of resignation. Resignation of an employee is in terms of rule 114a of the rules and as per which all that is required is that the managing committee must accept the resignation within 30 days. There is no issue in this case of the managing committee not having accepted the resignation within 30 days. What is argued before me on behalf of the petitioner is that even after acceptance of resignation, yet, the leaving employee will be entitled to work and get salary of three months in terms of second proviso to Rule 96(9).

7. In my opinion, the arguments which are urged on behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance upon the second proviso to Rule 96(9) are misconceived inasmuch as the second proviso to Rule 96(9) is not made for the benefit of the teacher but for the benefit of the school. This becomes clear from the third proviso which states that before expiry of the three months period if a school is able to provide a substitute for teacher who resigns, then, managing committee can relieve the teacher from his earlier duties. The earlier period means that period which commences when the substitute teacher would be available to the school. The object of law and which become clear on reading of second and third provisos together of Rule 96(9) is that the studies of the children in the school should not be affected by a teacher suddenly leaving the school. The period of three months is provided so that the school may get a substitute teacher. The expression ‘substitute teacher’ does not mean that there has to be necessarily a fresh appointment inasmuch as the school may have sufficient number of teachers to take the classes of that teacher who resigned from the school. If within the three months as provided under the first proviso to Rule 96(9) a substitute teacher is available then surely the school will be entitled to accept the resignation of an employee even before the three month period, and consequently bring an end to the services of such resigning teacher even prior to three months period.

8. Since in the present case respondent-school has stated that duties of the petitioner were given to Ms. Vandana Goswami after reopening of the summer vacation of the school, the school remaining closed from 16.5.2009 to 7.7.2009, in my opinion, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that petitioner was entitled to work and take salary for the period of three months under the second proviso to Rule 96(9) of the Rules. As already stated above, a combined reading of second and third provisos show that period of three months is for the benefit of the school and not for the teacher who is leaving the services of the school.

9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.