SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE SHRI JAIN ADARSH VIDYA NIKETAN SR SCHOOL NOKHA Vs. RAJASTHAN NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION TRIBUNAL JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the impugned order dtd. 18. 7. 98 (Annex. 10) passed by the Learned Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in appeal No. 319/96 (S. Prabhakaran vs. School Managing Committee Shri Jain Adarsh Vidya Niketan Sr. School, Nokha) by which the learned Tribunal set aside the order dtd. 31. 7. 96 whereby the services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated orally and respondents No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages, be set aside.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: i) That the petitioner i. e. School Managing Committee Shri Adarsh Vidya Niketan Sr. School, Nokha is a non-government educational institution recognised by the State Government and affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi situated at Nokha in Dist. Bikaner. ii) that respondent No. 2 Shri S. Prabhakaran was given appointment on the post of Post Gradate Teacher (Physics teacher) on probation vide order dtd. 22. 9. 94 (Annex. 1) for a period of one year from the date he joined the post. iii) That thereafter in want of better job as told by respondent No. 2 verbally to the petitioner-School, he submitted his resignation on 11. 9. 95, but however it was withdrawn vide letter dtd. 12. 9. 95 in which he stated that he was regretting for happening and assurance was also given that in future this would not happen. iv) That thereafter on account of unsatisfactory services, the probation period of respondent No. 2 was extended upto 30. 4. 96 vide letter dtd. 2. 11. 95. v) That thereafter since the performance of respondent No. 2 was not satisfactory, he was given further chance to improve his performance and further in continuation to the previous letter dtd. 2. 11. 95, his probation period was further extended for a period of one year w. e. f. 1. 5. 96 to 304. 97 vide letter dt. 14. 5. 96 (Annex. 3) in which it was stated that it be confirmed whether he was willing or not to continue in the institution. Thereupon the matter was discussed with the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 told that he was trying for better prospectus and therefore, his continuation in service be issued in July. vi) That thereafter in the month of July, 1996, the services of the respondent No. 2 were extended upto 31. 7. 96 vide letter dtd. 18. 7. 96 (Annex. 4 ). Thereafter neither his services were confirmed nor extended as his work was not found satisfactory despite given further chance to improve his performance. vii) That it was further submitted by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was not willing to work with the petitioner- school. The respondent No. 2 through letter dtd. 1. 8. 96 (Annex. 5) demanded experience certificate, last pay certificate and relieving order. viii) That thereafter through letter dtd. 19. 9. 1996 (Annex. 6), the petitioner demanded the following: 1) one month salary security deposit Rs. 3600/- 2) July, 96 salary Rs. 3600/- 3) One month notice period salary as per rules mentioned in the appointment order dtd. 22. 9. 1990 Rs. 3600/- Rs. 10,800/- ix) That in response to letter dtd. 19. 9. 96 (Annex. 6), the petitioner-School sent a letter dtd. 24. 9. 96 (Annex. 7) to the respondent No. 2 and advised to receive due amount as demanded by respondent No. 2 at any working day of the petitioner-School. x) That the respondent No. 2 never turned up and presented himself in the petitioner-School on any working day for receiving his dues as admissible because he could not appear on any working day as he had already joined his services in another Institution. xi) IT is further submitted by the petitioner that from above fact, it is clear that the respondent No. 2 was neither wiling to work nor interested in setting his dues and nor he worked with effect from 1. 8. 96 in the petitioner - school and he had left the services of the petitioner-School voluntarily. xii) Thereafter surprisingly, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989) before the Tribunal at Jaipur and that appeal was registered. xiii) That the learned Tribunal vide its judgment dtd. 18. 7. 98 (Annex. 10) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 and set aside the verbal termination order dtd. 31. 7. 96 and the respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages. Hence this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.

(3.) IN my considered opinion, the judgment of the learned Tribunal suffers from basic error of law apparent on the face of record and further more, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse and are based on no material.