LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. RAJASTHAN NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Institution is challenging the validity of judgment dated 18.09.1995 (Annex.-15) and order dated 02.09.1996 (Annex.-8) passed upon application filed under Order 9 Rule 13, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

(2.) The case of the petitioner institution is that an appeal was preferred by respondent No.4 employee of the petitioner institution against his termination order before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur. The said appeal was allowed by the Tribunal filed by respondent employee solely on the ground that before terminating the services of the respondent-employee. who was working on the post of Teacher, compliance of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 was not made. Said Judge dated 18.09.1999 was passed ex parte because, inspite of service, none appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner institution. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 13, read with Section 151, C.P.C. was filed. Said application was also rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the adjudication made by the Tribunal earlier is in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1989 because Section 18, whereby, approval of the Director, Education Department for terminating the services of the respondent employee was required to be obtained. Admittedly, as per record of the case, after completion of the enquiry against respondent No.4, no approval was obtained from the Director as required under Section 18 of the Act of 1989; and, now, the controversy has come to rest after the judgment of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, reported in 2006 (3) WLC (Raj.) 504, Managing Committee through Chairman (Brid.) Dy. G.O.C., Army School and Another v. Smt. Pushpa Sharma and 4 Others, in which, the Division Bench has held that before terminating the services of an employee of the Non-Government Education Institution, it is mandatory for the Institution to obtain approval of the Director as provided under Section 18 of the Act. In my opinion, the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the said judgment, therefore, no interference is required.

(3.) However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned judgment while setting aside the termination order dated 03.05.1994, the Tribunal has granted opportunity to the petitioner institution to take action in accordance with Section 18 and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of 1993. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that in the event of taking any action in accordance with the liberty granted by the Tribunal the petitioner institution may be granted opportunity to place the respondent-employee under suspension and to proceed further. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards judgments reported in JT 1996 (5) SC 403, State of Punjab and Others v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, (1981) 4 SCC 563, Divisional Personnel Officer, Wester Railway, Kota v. Sunder Dass; and AIR 1981 SC 1400, Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal and Another.