' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nehyan Public School. She was charged on different counts and was warned by the authority. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said school most students were subjected to physical punishment for no fault and it was circulated repeatedly to all the teachers but the petitioner did not abstain for physical beating to the students. Consequently on 9-1-1995 show-cause notice was issued to her. She submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 15-1-19.95. The competent authority was not satisfied with her reply so the then Principal again warned her not to repeat the same. In the Institution the private tuition was not allowed but the petitioner had been violating and teaching the students at their respective houses. There was a serious charge against her that she treated the students discriminately i,e, the students whom she taught at their houses they were nearer to her and others were totally ignored even in the class room. She was warned even on this immoral and unethical treatment with the students. She did not allow the class to sit in the class room. As a result of these violations of discipline and use of unfair means her increments for two years were stopped by the competent authority. She started friendship with Aurangzeb P.T.I. She was warned but she continued to meet Aurangzeb frequently.
On 21-3-1996 they were found and caught red handed while Aurangzeb and the petitioner were in an objectionable posture in a class room when the school time was over. They were seen in this position by the Hostel Warden who was also a teacher. Both the petitioner and Aurangzeb were called to the Principal Office on 21-3-1996. Both of them confessed their guilt. Aurangzeb tendered his resignation there and then whereas the petitioner tried to apologise but respondent No,3 declined to accept her apology. The matter was brought to the notice of Vice-Chairman of BOG, therefore, petitioner was placed under suspension on 24-3-1996. Thereafter, she voluntarily tendered her resignation. After this she did not attend the school. After long period she applied to the Vice-Chairman BOG for her reinstatement on 4-6-1996. The Vice-Chairman without applying his mind and obtaining reply from respondent No,5 ordered her reinstatement and letter was issued to respondent No,5 for compliance. Respondent No,5 did not implement the order keeping in view serious allegations against her and made a representation to the Vice-Chairman on 6-6- 1996. The Vice-Chairman insisted for her reinstatement vide order, -dated 9-8-1996. Respondent No,5 again expressed his inability to accept the order and again on 12-9-1996 referred the matter to the Vice-Chairman for acceptance her resignation. The Vice-Chairman was transferred on 9-8- 1996 and petitioner submitted an application on 9-9-1996 for compliance of reinstatement orders, dated 4-6-1996. The Vice-Chairman called for the whole case. He found it necessary that inquiry should be held by the Assistant Commissioner Rahimyar Khan who submitted his report on 3-11- 1996. The present Vice-Chairman perused the inquiry report, dated 3-11-1996 and therefore, accepted the resignation of the petitioner, dated 24-3-1996.
2. The petitioner's counsel contended that action of the answering respondents is without lawful authority and based on mala fides, therefore, is nonexistent in the eyts of law. Lie further argued that resignation was accepted without providing her personal hearing. The inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner was also without lawful authority.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that resignation submitted by her was accepted, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner was appointed in the Institution namely Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan AlNehyan Public School which is purely private Institution, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The principle of master and servant is also attracted.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties. It is admitted fact that Institution is a private Institution and respondents Nos.1 to 4 are the members of the Board of Governor. By virtue of their position as Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner the Institution did not become institution controlled by the Government. Its status remains the private Institution, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance can be placed on Muhammad Sharif v. The Secretary to the Government of the Punjab Basic Democracies Social Welfare and Local Government Department, Lahore and 3 others (PLD 1973 SC 497). Relationship of the petitioner and the respondents are master and servant, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.
I am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as The Principal Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhamamd Shoaib Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170) and Anwar Hussain v.
Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others. The petitioner herself submitted resignation which was accepted by the competent Authority, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. I am also fortified by the judgment reported as Secretary, Government of Punjab Food and Cooperation Department v. Shamoon Bahadur (PLD 1979 SC 835).
5. In view of what has been discussed, this writ petition is dismissed in limine.