JUDGMENT
Arun Madan, J.
1. This review petition has been prefered against the order dated 18th Nov., 1996 whereby the petitioner has sought to challenge the aforesaid order on the ground inter alia that as per the case canvassed on behalf of the Management of the respondent – School, the petitioner had tendered her resignation from the post of Teacher Grade III with effect from 28th April, 1992 (Annex. R/3 on the record) which was accepted with effect from 30.4.1992 (Annex.R/4) made effective with effect from 31stMay, 1992. It has vehemently been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had never tendered any resignation of Teacher (Grade-Ill) of Shri Adi Gaud Brahman (Murti Kalakar) School (respondent No. 4) and even assuming that contention of the respondents is to be accepted as correct even then, it could not be made effective with effect from 31.5.1992 on the basis of its acceptance by the Management with effect from 30.4.1992.
2. The learned Counsel has further contended that there could be no occasion for the petitioner to tender her resignation particularly when second stay application was filed on her behalf on 22.5.1992 and notices were issued on the said application by this Court in pursuance of the order dated 23.3.1992 passed in 1st stay application in pursuance of which, this court had directed that one post of trained teacher be kept vacant till further orders.
3. The case of the petitioner in short is that she was appointed as Teacher Grade III with effect from 12th August, 1979 in Aadi Gaur Brahmin Middle School which is under the control of State Government i.e. Secretary, Education Department as well as Director of Education, Bikaner, respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively. The school where the petitioner last served in the capacity of trained teacher pursuant to her qualifying B.Ed, in the year 1991 as per the marksheet issued by the Controller of Examination, Kota Open University (vide Annex.3) on the record. A perusal of this marksheet reveals that the petitioner had qualified the said examination in the year 1991 itself. She performed the duty as Teacher Grade III in the aforesaid school regularly with effect from 12.8.1979 and it was while during her tenure of service that she obtained B.Ed. qualification from Kota Open University. After completing her B.Ed. Course, the petitioner made several requests by way of representations to respondents No. 4 and 5 to place her in the regular grade of trained teacher as per the terms and conditions of her appointment letter dtd. 12th August, 1979 vide Annex. 1 as she was eligible for the said post, but no heed was paid to the same by the Management of respondent school. In the meanwhile on 20th Sep., 1991, the respondent No. 4 Issued an advertisement which was published in the Rajasthan patrika inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of trained Teacher. This fact is borne out from the advertisement (vide Annex. 5) on the record. Soon after seeing the advertisement published in the newspaper, the petitioner immediately contacted respondents No. 4 and 5 who assured her that advertisement was published due to some mistake and they had no intention to select anybody else for vacant post and that she was assured that she will be adjusted on the vacant post in view of her fulfilling the eligibility criteria and will also be given suitable grade.
4. Contrary to the assurance conveyed to the petitioner as aforesaid, the respondents took interviews from the eligible candidates who had applied for the post of trained Teacher and the petitioner was thereafter not permitted to mark her attendance on the register maintained by the school nor permitted to perform her duties on the said post which she was already doing prior to the same.
5. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondents while controverting the aforesaid contention of the petitioner had contended that the school is run under the Management and Control of the Management Committee and for that purpose, the functionaries of the Management Committee are the President and the Secretary respectively who should have been impleaded as party respondents. They have further stated that they have nothing to do with the Management of the school and as such not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On merits, it has been contended that though, it is an aided Institution, but the aid is limited only to the extent of trained teachers. It has further been contended that since the said school does not fall under the category of instrumentality of the State (Article 12 of the Constitution) and hence, the Government has nothing to do with the management of the School and it is limited only in respect of inspection of the school. In reply of merits, the respondents have admitted the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade III with effect from 12.8.1979 while they have denied that the School is under the Management of respondents No. 4 and 5. As regards eligibility condition, it has been contended that the condition of appointment as B.Ed, trained teacher was imposed on the petitioner that she will be permitted to continue in the service if she obtains such qualification during tenure of her service which in fact she did obtain as per the marksheet (vide Annex3) on the record. The respondents have controverted the petitioner’s contention with regard to the assurance conveyed to her regarding her adjustment on the post of trained teacher which was lying vacant since July, 1991 for the reason that since the post was lying vacant and in response to the advertisement dated, 29th Sep., 1991, the Management Committee had received 36 applications including the application of the petitioner, they were within their right to select anyone eligible candidate amongst 36 candidates for one vacant post of trained teacher. It has further been contended that the selection was made by the Committee comprising of 4 members which included the President, Secretary, and Headmaster of the School along with the Senior Deputy Dist. Education Officer (II), Jaipur who was the Government representative. In spite of one post having been kept vacant, the petitioner did not appear for interview held on 27th Sep., 1991 in response to the advertisement dated 20th Sep., 1991 and hence she lost her right to be considered for the post of trained teacher, though her name finds place in the said list at serial No. 27 as per (Annex.R/4-5/2) on the record.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and examined the rival claims and contentions of the parties and legal position with reference to the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (for short the Act of 1989) as amended by Act No. 19 of 1992. Prima facie I am of the view that instead of moving this Court by way of this writ petition, the petitioner should have moved the appropriate forum under the Act i.e. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational institution Tribunal which was set up by the State Government and which started functioning in the State of Rajasthan with effect from 18.2.1993 when the Act was notified in the State Gazette.
7. It would be pertinent to mention that as on the date when the writ petition was filed in this Court on 22.10.91, the Act of 1989 obviously could not be in force and as a consequence of which the petitioner could not seek relief by way of approaching the appropriate forum constituted under the said Act. The school where the petitioner last served is recognized by the State Education Department and is also an aided school as per the attested copy of the certificate dated 24th Sep., 1988 which has been shown to the Court by the learned Counsel during the course of hearing. In any case, it is not the subject matter in controversy since the respondents have not disputed this fact that the respondent – School is not recognized school under the Act.
8. Be that as it may, the controversy which has to be resolved pertains to the issue as to whether resignation which was tendered by the petitioner as on 28.4.1992 and which was accepted just after two days by the management of school respondent i.e. on 30.4.1992 itself made effective with effect from 31.5.1992, is open to challenge by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents to show cause notice, the respondents have contended inter alia that “the petitioner had abandoned the job w.e.f. 1.7.1992 onwards” whereas resignation was accepted by the respondents earlier with effect from 30.4.1992 made effective with effect from 31.5.1992. Be that as it may, it will not be proper for this Court to go into detailed examination as to disputed questions of facts which would require appreciation of evidence which may not be permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. It is needless to emphasis that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court does not exercise the power of Appellate Forum which can only be assailed before the Appellate Authority and that too even on legal and technical grounds if admissible to the aggrieved parties in accordance with law. Moreover as on 18.11.1996 when the writ petition was heard finally and order was passed, neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present though the matter was duly notified in the cause list. Even on earlier occasion i.e. on 12th Sep., 1996, none was present on behalf of the petitioner though the Court had expressed its desire that the Management may consider the petitioner’s request for her re-employment. As on 18.11.1996 when the order was passed dismissing the writ petition, a contention was advanced at Bar by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had filed an application for being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in the office of respondents, but she did not appear for her interview on the relevant date i.e. on 27.9.1991 and consequently she lost her chance for being considered for appointment on the said post. It is only thereafter that on 28.4.1992, the petitioner had tendered her resignation which was accepted by the respondents with effect from 31.4.1992.
10. During course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that alternatively, the petitioner may be permitted to move to the appropriate forum for such necessary relief as may be admissible to her and which she may be advised in accordance with law. He has further contended that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to approach the appropriate forum constituted under the Rajasthan non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 by which the respondent – Institution is governed keeping in view her long service record.
11. As a result of above discussion. I find no force in the review petition. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been in service of respondent-Institution since 1979 and was in service till her resignation was accepted i.e. 30.4.1992, I deem it appropriate to direct that in case, the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum constituted under the Act of 1989 (as amended by Act of 1992), she will be at liberty to do so if so advised in accordance with law. It is further clarified that in that event the delay which has occasioned as a result of writ petition having been filed earlier in the Court which was dismissed on 18.11.1996 and consequently review petition arising out of said order which is being disposed of today by this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner provided she moves the appropriate forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is further clarified that the observations made in this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner before the appropriate forum.
12. With the above observations, the review petition stands disposed of.
