Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64985 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3718 of 2025 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management, Sri Sukkhan Lal Adarsh Kanya Inter College Meerapur And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Anubhav Dwivedi,C.S.C.,Satyendra Nath Tripathi Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.4 was working as the Officiating Principal and by letter dated 21.10.2024 she has submitted her resignation from the post of Officiating Principal. However, the petitioner protected her lien on the post of Lecturer in English. The resignation of respondent no.4 was accepted on 23.10.2024 and was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 26.11.2024. In the intervening period, on 24.10.2024 respondent no.4 made a complaint before the District Inspector of Schools that the resignation in question has been taken by force. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once resignation has been accepted by the management, then the petitioner could not have withdrawn her consent by submitting letter dated 24.10.2024. The acceptance of the resignation by the Committee of Management on 23.10.2024 by itself would amount to the acceptance of the offer by the respondent no.4. Therefore, the clock could not have been put back. Once the acceptance of the resignation has been disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools, the previous resolution of the Committee of Management would not come into effect until the approval is granted. 4. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 has opposed the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that under Regulation 29, Chapter 3 the notice period has been provided for acceptance of the resignation. However, in the present case neither the notice period has been followed nor the pay in lieu of notice has been submitted by respondent no.4. The resignation was obtained by force from respondent no.4 and the respondent no.4 has communicated the same on 24.10.2024 to the District Inspector of Schools and, thereafter, the impugned order disapproving the resignation has been passed. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.4 has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the cases of Panna Lal Pathak Vs. District Inspector of Schools and others, 1988 UPLBEC 827 and Smt. Anita Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC:2589 to submit that the resignation can only be accepted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Regulation 29 and there was no other option except to have waited for the notice period and the management in hurry has accepted the resignation which itself is indicative of the fact that the allegations made by the respondent no.4 in the letter dated 24.10.2024 is substantive in nature. 6. In the present case, it is to be seen that the disapproval of the acceptance of resignation has been solely on the ground that the respondent no.4 is the senior most and she is running the institution in question in accordance with law. Although, the allegations with regard to forceful taking of the resignation contained in the letter dated 24.10.2024 of the respondent no.4. However, no finding has been recorded by the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order as has been accepted by learned counsel for the parties. The arguments raised by learned counsel for respondent no.4 have force. However, the same has not been considered by the District Inspector of Schools while passing the impugned order. A party cannot be put to surprise before this Court and cannot meet all the possible objections of the respondent unless the same finds place in the impugned order as such it would be in the interest of justice that the matter be relegated to the District Inspector of Schools for decision a fresh. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools concerned to consider the validity of the acceptance of the resignation by the Committee of Management qua the Regulation 29 as well as shall also consider whether the resignation has been obtained by force as has been alleged in the letter dated 24.10.2024 prior to passing of any order of approval of the acceptance of resignation. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Till the decision is taken by the District Inspector of Schools, the respondent no.4 would continue in the institution as an Officiating Principal and shall maintain discipline in the institution. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Bhaskar Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad