Appeal U/S 19 Of Non-Govt Educational Institutions Act Maintainable In Similar Matters Of Termination Of Temporary Employees: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court held that an Appeal under Section 19 of the Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 is maintainable in similar matters of termination of service of temporary employees.

The Jaipur Bench held thus in Writ Petitions filed against the common Judgment of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal, Jaipur, which allowed the Appeals of the employees and quashed the termination orders.

A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “… it is clear that appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 is maintainable in similar matters of termination from service, of temporary employees. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

The Bench said that the services of the employees cannot be terminated without giving six months’ notice or at least six months’ salary.

Advocate Naina Saraf appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Virendra Lodha appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Respondents were appointed for a fixed term in their service tenure purely on contractual basis and at the end of their term, their services were terminated. The employees were not selected or appointed through regular selection process. As per the counsel for the Respondents, the Petitioner-Management showed their appointment as temporary with a view to maintain facets of exploitation and to keep the employees on temporary basis in order to restrain them from becoming permanent. The Appeals of the Respondents were allowed by the Tribunal, which quashed the termination orders and directed for the reinstatement of employees in service with all consequential benefits. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… it can safely be concluded that in the case of termination of service of both the regular and temporary employee of a recognised educational institution, the provisions contained under Section 18(iii) is required to be followed.”

The Court said that the whole purpose behind enactment of the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 and the provisions made therein i.e., Section 18 and Rule 39 is to check arbitrary action on the part of the unscrupulous management of the educational institutions.

“The Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993 made thereunder are social legislation enacted to ameliorate and improve educational system. Intention of the Act and the Rules formed thereunder, is to check the various malpractices and mischiefs committed by the mighty management to exploit its employees whether appointed on regular or temporary basis. The language contained under Section 18 and Rule 39 is clear and specific and it requires no other interpretation. These provisions are available to all employees, whether he/she is appointed on regular or temporary basis”, it added.

The Court further took note of the fact that the Respondents were neither given six months’ notice nor salary in lieu thereof and without following the mandate contained under Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989, the services were terminated. It also observed that the service of the Respondents was terminated by the Petitioner in an arbitrary manner.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Writ Petitions.

Cause Title- Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya v. Saurabh Upadhayaya & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:14355)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Naina Saraf

Respondents: Senior Advocate Virendra Lodha, Dy. GC Namita Parihar, Advocates Ankit Rathore, Anjum Praveen Salawat, and Ramesh Acharya.

Click here to read/download the Judgment