SMT GAYATRI SHARMA Vs. SHRI DEEN DAYAL TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dtd. 2/8/2001 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by which the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 against his termination order dtd. 10/9/1998 has been quashed and the order for his reinstatement in service has been passed along-with pay/ allowances.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a selection process was initiated by the respondent-Department for appointment on the post of Teacher wherein the respondent No.4 participated. At the time of selection process, the Representative of the Department of Education was present and the respondent No.4 was selected on the post of Teacher and appointment was given to him on 11/3/1998. Counsel submits that the appointment of the respondent No.4 was approved by the Government and he continued in service till 10/9/1998. Counsel submits that in the meantime, a letter was received by him from the District Education Officer, (Secondary) First, Bhilwara, by which the approval order of his appointment, dtd. 4/3/1998 was cancelled. Counsel submits that in consequence thereof, the appointment order of respondent No.4 was cancelled vide order dtd. 10/9/1998 by the petitioner. Counsel submits that certain complaints were received by the Government with regard to the irregular appointments and violation of the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Rules, 1993 (for short, "the Rules of 1993") in the selection process. Counsel submits that a Committee was constituted and certain recommendations were made by the said Committee wherein it was observed by the said Committee that the policy of roster point was invalid, at the time of initiation of selection process. Counsel submits that on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee, the Government passed an order of cancelling the approval for the appointment of the respondent No.4, but these facts were overlooked by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment dtd. 2/8/2001. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

(3.) No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.