Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Abdul Rahim vs The Managing Committee Islamia on 2 May, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:17901]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 726/2001
Abdul Rahim son of Shri Deen Mohammad, aged about 30 yers,
resident of C/o M/s Azhruddin Brothers and General Store, Near
Islamia Senior Secondary School, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.The Managing Committee Islamia Senior Secondary School,
Sikar through its Manager.
2.The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions
Tribunal, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Madhukar Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Anjum Parveen Salawat for
Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
JUDGEMENT
RESERVED ON :: 22/04/2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: 02/05/2025
1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2000 passed by
learned Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions
Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in application No.
111/1999 as well as dissatisfied with the action of termination of
service w.e.f. 15.05.1999, the petitioner has filed the instant writ
petition with a further prayer to grant benefit of reinstatement
along with all consequential benefits.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed in
Respondent-non-Government Educational Institution on
16.09.1993. As per petitioner, respondent No.1 is a recognized
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (2 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
and aided Institution, receiving grant in aid from the Government
of Rajasthan for its recurring and non-recurring expenses.
3. As per the petitioner, he worked as Teacher in Primary
Classes from 16.09.1993 to 31.01.1994 and for teaching the
Senior Secondary Classes from 01.02.1994 to 14.05.1994.
Thereafter, artificial break was given to him and an advertisement
was issued in news-paper for inviting applications from eligible
persons for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III. As per
petitioner, he submitted application pursuant to the advertisement
and also appeared before the Interview Board constituted by the
Institution. After undergoing process, he was appointed on the
post of Teacher Grade-III on 27.07.1996. However again his
services were dispensed with at the end of academic session
1996-97 w.e.f. 22.05.1997 and again in July, 1997, he was given
re-appointment and at the end of session 1997-98, his services
were again discontinued. As per petitioner, he was again appointed
in the start of next academic session in July, 1998 and when he
sought admissible leaves in May, 1999, the same were not granted
and annoyed by a such demand of leave his services were dis-
continued w.e.f. 15.05.1999.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the termination, petitioner filed an
application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government
Educational Institutions Act, 1989 with a prayer to quash and set
aside the illegal action of the respondent in terminating the
services of the petitioner w.e.f. 15.05.1999 with directions of
reinstatement along with continuity in service as well as other
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (3 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
consequential benefits. He also prayed for granting pay fixation in
revised pay scale of 1998 as well as to give benefit of PF and GPF
and other service conditions admissible to an employee of Non-
Government Institutions pursuant to the Act of 1989 and Rules of
1993 framed thereunder. He also made some other incidental
prayers.
5. Reply to the application, filed by the petitioner before the
Tribunal, was filed by the respondent-Institution on 06.08.1999 in
which, the stand of respondent was that services of the petitioner
have not been terminated rather he himself has left the services
without any intimation and without taking any leave. It was also
submitted that petitioner was never appointed against any
sanctioned and aided post. It has also been stated in reply to the
application by the respondent that since services of the petitioner
were never terminated, therefore, the application was liable to be
dismissed.
6. Thereafter, without there being any direction of the Tribunal,
at its own, the respondent-Institution filed an affidavit dated
26.10.1999, which was in support of reply to the application
earlier filed by the respondent-institution and without there being
any reference in the pleadings, as many as four documents were
placed on record including one order dated 14.05.1999 showing
that services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 15.05.1999.
7. Learned Tribunal decided the application vide order dated
14.07.2000, whereby the relief against termination of service
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (4 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
w.e.f. 15.05.1999 was disallowed to the petitioner, however, by
partially allowing the application benefit and deduction for the
purpose of PF under Rule 68 of the Rules of 1993 was granted to
the petitioner.
8. Feeling aggrieved to the extent of rejecting the application
qua the termination of services, the writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner.
9. I have considered the record and have also heard learned
counsel for both the parties at length.
10. It has been submitted by Shri Prahlad Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioner, that stand of the respondent before the
Tribunal was self-contradictory, which naturally puts on doubt over
the conduct and bonafide of the respondent. Apparently, the
respondent-institution has attempted to mislead the Tribunal,
firstly by stating in reply to the application dated 06.08.1999 that
services of the petitioner were never terminated and rather the
petitioner was allegedly absented from duties in an unauthorised
manner, on the contrary, the respondent-institution itself placed
copy of the order dated 14.05.1999 on record along with affidavit
dated 26.10.1999 to show that services of the petitioner were
terminated by the respondent-institution vide order dated
14.05.1999.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued
that in fact the petitioner was in continuous service of the
respondent-institution w.e.f 16.09.1993, albeit some artificial
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (5 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
breaks were given at the end of academic sessions, so as to
defeat and prejudice the legitimate rights of the petitioner as well
as to deprive him of salary for the summer vacations.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-
institution being a recognized and aided institution was under an
obligation to make compliance of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 as
well as Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993, before passing any order of
termination.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither
any notice before terminating the services of the petitioner was
given to him, nor was any enquiry whatsoever conducted against
him by the respondent-institution. It has also been submitted that
before terminating the services of the petitioner, the respondent-
institution has also not taken approval of the Director of Education
or any Officer authorized by him. Hence, the termination order
was manifestly illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
14. Per contra; learned counsel for the respondent, although,
admitted that at the relevant time, the respondent-institution was
recognized as well as aided institution, yet has submitted that the
petitioner was never appointed against any sanctioned or aided
post, therefore, protection under Section 18 of the Act of 1989
and Rules of 1993 was not available to the petitioner. It has also
been submitted that under the circumstances where the petitioner
was not holding any aided post, the respondents were not
required to give any show cause notice or even conducting enquiry
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (6 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
against the petitioner nor were they required to seek approval
from Director of Education. The respondents have supported the
order passed by the learned Tribunal and have prayed for rejecting
the writ petition.
15. Before adjudicating the rival claims, it would be relevant to
refer the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39
of the Rules of 1993 as under:
“18. Removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of
employees- Subject to any rules that may be made in
this behalf, no employee of a recognised institution shall
removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has
been given by the management a reasonable opportunity
of being heard against the action proposed to be taken :
Provided that no final order in this regard shall be passed
unless prior approval of the Director of Education or an
officer authorised by him in this behalf has been
obtained:
Provided further that this section shall not apply –
(i) to a person who is dismissed or removed on the
ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a
criminal charge; or
(ii) where it is not practicable or expedient to give that
employee an opportunity of showing cause, the consent
of Director of Education has been obtained in writing
before the action is taken; or
(iii) where the managing committee is of unanimous
opinion that the services of an employee can not be
continued services of such employee are terminated after
giving him six months notice or salary in lieu thereof and(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (7 of 18) [CW-726/2001]the consent of the Director of Education is obtained in
writing.”
Rule 39. Removal or Dismissal from Service- (1)The
services of an employee appointed temporarily for six
months, may be terminated by the management at any
time after giving at least one month’s notice or one
month’s salary in lieu thereof. Temporary employee, who
wishes to resign shall also give atleast one month’s notice
in advance or in lieu thereof deposit or surrender one
month’s salary to the management.
(2) An employee, other than the employee referred to in
sub-rule (1), may be removed or dismissed from service
on the grounds of insubordination, inefficiency, neglect of
duty, misconduct or any other grounds which makes the
employee unsuitable for further retention in service. But
the following procedure shall be adopted for the removal
or dismissal of an employee :
(a) A preliminary enquiry shall be held on the allegations
coming into or brought to the notice of the management
against the employee;
(b) On the basis of the findings of the preliminary enquiry
report, a charge sheet alongwith statement of allegations
shall be issued to the employee and he shall be asked to
submit his reply within a reasonable time;
(c) After having pursued the preliminary enquiry report
and the reply submitted by the employee, if any, if the
managing committee is of the opinion that a detailed
enquiry is required to be conducted, a three member
committee shall be constituted by it in which a nominee
of the Director of Education shall also be included;
(d) During the enquiry by such enquiry committee the
employee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (8 of 18) [CW-726/2001]being heard and to defend himself by means of written
statement as well as by leading evidence, if any;
(e) The enquiry committee, after completion of the
detailed enquiry, shall submit its report to the
management committee;
(f) If the managing committee, having regard to the
findings of the enquiry committee on the charges, is of
the opinion that the employee should be removed or
dismissed from service, it shall –
(i) furnish to the employee a copy of the report of the
enquiry committee,
(ii) give him a notice stating the penalty of removal or
dismissal and call upon him to submit within a specified
time such representation as he may wish to make on the
proposed penalty;
(g) In every case, the records of the enquiry together
with a copy of notice given under sub-clause (f) (ii) above
and the representation made in response to such notice if
any, shall be forwarded by the managing committee to
the Director of Education or an officer by authorised him
in this behalf, for approval;
(h) On receipt of the approval as mentioned in sub-clause
(g) above, the managing committee may issue
appropriate order of removal or dismissal as the case
may be and forward a copy of such order to the
employee concerned and also to the Director of Education
or the officer authorised by him in this behalf :
Provided that the provisions of this rule shall not apply –
(i) to an employee who is removed or dismissed on the
ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a
criminal charge, or(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (9 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
(ii) where it is not practicable or expedient to give that
employee an opportunity of showing cause, the consent
of the Director of Education has been obtained in writing
before the action is taken, or
(iii) where the managing committee is of unanimous
opinion that, the services of an employee can not be
continued without prejudice to the interest of the
institution, the services of such employee are terminated
after giving him six months notice or salary in lieu thereof
and the consent of the Director of Education is obtained
in writing.”
16. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance the following
judgments:-
1. Honorary Secretary, Maheshwari Balika Vidyalaya, Jaipur
Vs. Ravindra Pareek and Anr. reported in WLC (Raj.)
1996(3) 102
2. Sri Sanatan Dharm Shastri Sanskrit Mahavidyalayal Vs.
The State of Raj. And Ors.: DBSAW No. 522/2013, decided on
19.09.2013.
3. Bhopalwala Arya Higher Secondary School Managing
Committee, Sriganganar Vs. Mr. Nand Lal Saraswat and
ors.:DBSAW No.860/2008, decided 28.11.2008, at Principal Seat,
Jodhpur.
4. Managing Committee through Chairman (BRID) Dy.
G.O.C., Army School and Anr. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Sharma & 4
Ors.:DB Civil Appeal (W)No.62/02, 202 to 205/2002, decided on
31.03.2006.
5. Central Academy Society Vs. Rajasthan Non-Government
Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur and ors.:DBSAW
No. 344-346/2001, decided on 31.05.2010.
6. Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and Ors. reported in
(2016) 6 SCC 541
7. Gajanand Sharma Vs. Adarsh Siksha Parishad Samiti,
reported in AIR 2023 SC 539.
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (10 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
8. Yogendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Rajasthan Non-Government
Educational Institution Tribunal and Ors. :SBCWP No.
2453/2001, decided on 01.05.2024
9. Managing Committee D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya
Vs. Saurabh Upadhayaya and anr. along with connected
matters: SBCWP No.3668/2017, decided on 08.04.2025
10. Marwari Balika Vidyalaya V. Asha Srivastava and Ors.
reported in (2020) 14, SCC 449
11. Anamika Saxena Vs. The Chairman Army Public School
and Anr. :SBCWP No. 1254/2017, decided on 10.04.2019
12. The Chairman Army Public School and Anr. Vs. Anamika
Saxena:DBSAW No.772/2019, decided on 29.05.2019
13. Army Public School and Anr. Vs. Arvind Bhandari:SBCWP
No. 17565/2022, decided on 14.02.2025
14. Rattanlal and ors. Etc.etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
reported in AIR 1987 SC 478
15. Mrs. Anita Kothari etc. etc. Vs. State of Raj. And
ors.:DBCWP No. 1908/1989 and 93 other connected writ
petitions, decided on 20.o08.1990.
17. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has
placed reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Vishnu Kumar Vs. M.C.S. University and Anr. reported in
2001 WLC 793.
2. Managing Committee (The) & Ors. Vs. Ramphool Meena
(DB) reported in 2009(4) RLW 2997
3. Jain Siksha Samiti Tijara Vs. Shri Ratan Singh reported in
WLC 2010 (U.C.) 754
4. S.S. Jain Subodh Siksha Samiti Vs. Seema Daya (DB)
reported in 2017(1) WLC Raj. (U.C.) 209
5. State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Sheela (DB) reported in 2018
(2) WLN 251
6. Rajasthan State Roadways Vs. Pranjeet Singh reported in
2019 (6) SCC 250.
7. Khetri Vikas Samiti Vs. Director College Education (SC)
decided on 09.05.2019(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (11 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
8. Managing Committee Bhawani Niketan Vs. RNGET decided
on 01.04.2022.
9. Shri Agarwal Siksha Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan decided
by Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 04.03.1998.
18. Counsel for the respondents has although admitted the fact
that respondent-institution was aided institution yet has
vehemently argued that as the petitioner was not holding any
aided post, therefore, he does not any protection under Section 18
and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993.
19. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer Rule 2(C) of the
Rules of 1993.
2.(C)”Aided Institution” means a recognised
institutions, which is receiving regular aid in the form of
maintenance grant from the State Government;
Explanation-If any part of an institution, receives
maintenance grant, the entire institution shall be treated
as aided institution irrespective of whether any other part
of the institution is or is not covered by the aid.”
20. Explanation appended to the aforesaid Rule 2(C) would make
it clear that even if any part of an institution is receiving a
maintenance grant, then the institution shall be treated as an
aided institution irrespective of the fact that whether any other
part of the institution is or is not covered by the aid or not?
21. Thus, in view of the above, provision contemplated in
explanation appended to Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1993, even if
grant in aid was not being received against the post held by the
petitioner, yet by virtue of aforesaid provisions, protection granted
to employees of aided institution was also to be applicable in the
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (12 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
case of the petitioner and he could not have been deprived of such
protection for the reason that some part of the respondent-
institution was admittedly an aided institution at the relevant time.
22. Learned Tribunal in its order dated 14.07.2000 has although
taken note of the submission made on behalf of the counsel for
the petitioner that provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and
Rules 39 of the Rules of 1993 were not followed before
terminating the services of the petitioner, yet such argument
raised on behalf of the petitioner has not been discussed and
analyzed by learned Tribunal at the touch stone of facts of the
instant case. Learned Tribunal has denied protection of the Act of
1989 and Rules of 1993 to the petitioner only on account of the
fact that petitioner was not appointed against the sanctioned post.
Such finding is against the scheme of the Act and is not liable to
be sustained.
23. In the case of Honorary Secretary, Maheshwari Balika
Vidyalaya, Jaipur (supra), this Court has held that provisions of
Section 18 of the Act and Rule 39 of the Rules shall be applicable
even in the cases where appointment was ad-hoc in nature and
services of the concerned employee were used to be terminated
after end of the academic session.
24. In the instant case, the respondents have utterly failed to
show that any notice, much less than departmental enquiry, was
issued to the petitioner prior to terminating his services, nor has
the respondent discharged their burden to show as to whether
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (13 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
approval of Director of Education or any person authorised by him
was ever taken or not.
25. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Sanatan
Dharm Shastri Sanskrit Mahavidyalayal (supra), this Court
was dealing with a case of an employee who was also not holding
the regular post and his services were purely on daily wages basis,
still protection of the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 thereunder
was granted to such an employee.
26. In the case of Bhopalwala Arya Higher Secondary
School Managing Committee (supra), the Division Bench of
this Court while dealing with a case of temporary employee and
after considering the definition of “employee” set out under the
Act has given a finding that even an employee appointed on
temporary basis could not have been terminated without following
the procedure contemplated under Section 18 of the Act.
27. In the Managing Committee through Chairman (BRID)
Dy. G.O.C., Army School and Anr. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Sharma
& 4 Ors (supra), Central Academy Society Vs. Rajasthan
Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur
and ors. also in the similar circumstances, it was held that
compliance of Section 18 and Rule 39 is mandatory in nature.
28. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of an
unaided institution, in the case of Gajanand Sharma (supra),
which has arisen out of the provisions of aforesaid Act of 1989 has
categorically held that where the institution is recognized under
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (14 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
the Act then provisions of Section 18 are to be followed directly
and prior approval of Director of Education is required to be taken.
Para 5.5. of the judgment is being reproduced as under:
“5.5 Even on fair reading of Section 18 of the Act, 1989,
we are of the opinion that in case of termination of an
employee of a recognized institution prior approval of
the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him
in this behalf has to be obtained. In Section 18, there is
no distinction between the termination, removal, or
reduction in rank after the disciplinary
proceedings/enquiry or even without disciplinary
proceedings/enquiry. As per the settled position of law
the provisions of the statute are to be read as they are.
Nothing to be added and or taken away. The words used
are “no employee of a recognized institution shall be
removed without holding any enquiry and it further
provides that no final order in this regard shall be passed
unless prior approval of the Director of Education has
been obtained.” The first part of Section 18 is to be read
along with first proviso. Under the circumstances, taking
a contrary view that in case of dismissal/removal of an
employee of a recognized institution which is after
holding the departmental enquiry the prior approval of
the Director of Education is not required is unsustainable
and to that extent the judgment of the Larger Bench of
the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Central Academy
Society(supra) is not a good law.”
29. Thus, it is clear by perusing the aforesaid judgment that for
the purpose of seeking protection of Section 18 under the Act, it is
not necessary that the concerned Institution is an aided Institution
or not. Merely, if an Institution is recognized under the Act, even
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (15 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
in such circumstances compliance of Section 18 of the Act in
mandatory.
30. Thus, even if contention of counsel for the Respondent is
taken at its face value that no aid was being received against the
post held by the petitioner, even then admittedly being a
recognized Institution, the respondent-institution was not
absolved from rigour of law as mandated by Section 18 of the Act.
31. Aforesaid judgment in the case of Gajanand Sharma
(supra) has been followed by this Court in the case of Yogendra
Kumar Mishra (supra), Para Nos. 24 and 25 of the judgment
are being reproduced as under:
“24. Taking into consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the findings and
observations of the Courts as given in the judgments
referred above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that if an employee is continued in service of an
educational institution governed by the provisions of the
Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993 even on temporary
basis for years together then his services otherwise than
by way of disciplinary proceedings can be terminated by
the Managing Committee of the institution on the
existence of the contingency provided under Clause (iii) of
2nd proviso to Section 18 after giving him six months’
notice or salary in lieu thereof or obtaining the consent of
the Director of Education or an Officer authorized on his
behalf in writing.
25. In the present case, the petitioner, who continued
for years together in the service of the respondent-
institution, was dismissed/terminated/removed from
service without any show cause notice and without prior
approval of the Director of Secondary Education or Officer(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (16 of 18) [CW-726/2001]on his behalf, hence the termination/removal of the
petitioner from service by the respondent-institution
w.e.f. 24.12.1998 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and
unjustified. The findings of the Tribunal is perverse and
contrary to the law as referred above.”
32. From careful examination of aforesaid consistent views taken
by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that
irrespective of the fact as to whether the petitioner was appointed
against sanctioned post or not or the respondent-institution was
receiving aid against the post of petitioner or not, in all such
cases, compliance of Section 89 and Rule 39 is mandatory.
33. In the instant case, it would also be relevant to mention that
conduct of respondent-institution is also not bonafide for the
reason that instead of placing correct and complete facts before
the Tribunal, the respondent-institution has attempted to mislead
the learned Tribunal by placing distorted the facts in reply and it
was stated that services of the petitioner were never terminated
by the respondent-institution and rather the petitioner had
voluntarily abandoned the services. Such contention of the
respondent-institution stands falsified merely by perusing the
subsequent affidavit filed by the respondent-institution before
Tribunal whereby termination order dated 14.05.1999 terminating
the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 15.05.1999 was placed on
record. Hence, such conduct of unfairness is not acceptable and is
liable to be deprecated.
34. Needless to mention here that imparting education is
primarily a function of the State, however, at the relevant point of
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (17 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
time and may be on account of lack of proper infrastructure, it
was though proper by the policy farmers to introduce a scheme of
establishing non-Government Educational Institutions and for that
purpose even legislation has been enacted. The State Government
has supported such non-Government Educational Institution by
providing suitable land on concessional rates, by granting them
recognition as well as, in suitable case, providing monetary
support by releasing grant in aid. The idea behind establishing
such institution was fulfill the object of the State to literate and
educate citizens at large scale and such pious object may not be
frustrated on account of lack of infrastructure available to the
State functionaries and Non-Government Institutions may come
forward to share burden and responsibility of the State.
35. However, such institutions, at the time of receiving facilities
and aid from the Government, are also under legal obligations to
strictly follow provision of Statute as well as Rules and
Regulations, so that rights of any person may not be jeopardized.
36. Providing quality education must be first and foremost object
of such non-Government institution. Such goal can be achieved
only by providing basic essential support to the teaching and non-
teaching staff of the institutions so that they may not feel
insecured on account of arbitrary hire and fire policies adopted by
the respondent-institution contrary to the provisions of law.’
37. In the instant case, without following the mandatory
procedure contemplated in the Act of 1989 as well as Rules of
1993, at the whims and fancies of the management committee,
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17901] (18 of 18) [CW-726/2001]
services of the petitioner have been terminated in quite arbitrary
and illegal manner. Learned Tribunal has also utterly failed to
appreciate the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of law
in a correct manner. Hence, order dated 14.07.2000 passed by the
learned Tribunal is liable to be interfered with and consequently
termination order dated 14.05.1999 issued by the respondent-
institution is hereby quashed. The respondent-institution is
directed to reinstate the petitioner by maintaining continuity in
service. However, the petitioner would not be entitled for actual
monitory benefits of the intervening period, but the fixational
benefits, seniority and other admissible benefits shall be granted
to the petitioner on notional basis. Necessary orders in this regard
be passed by respondent No.1 within a period of two months form
the date of receipt of certified copy of the instant order.
Respondent No.2 is directed to ensure compliance of the instant
Judgment/Order.
38. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed.
39. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
pcg/02
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)