Justice Anand Sharma, Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court: Mandatory For Institutions Under Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act To Comply With Said Act’s Procedures
|The Rajasthan High Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by a teacher whose services were terminated by the Managing Committee Islamia Senior Secondary School.
The Rajasthan High Court held that an Institution recognised under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act must comply with the procedures established under the said Act.
The Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by a teacher whose services were terminated by the Managing Committee Islamia Senior Secondary School. The Court quashed the Order by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, upholding the termination issued by the school and directing the reinstatement of the Petitioner with continuity in service.
A Single Bench of Justice Anand Sharma remarked, “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 nonteaching 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.”
Advocate Prahlad Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Madhukar Tiwari represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner sought reinstatement along with all consequential benefits, pay fixation in the revised pay scale and benefits of PF and GPF.
The Petitioner was initially appointed in the Respondent-non-Government Educational Institution. He claimed that he worked as a Teacher in Primary Classes and Senior Secondary Classes. According to the Petitioner, artificial breaks were given to him, and he was re-appointed multiple times after advertisements and interviews. His services were ultimately discontinued effective, after he sought admissible leaves.
The Respondent submitted that the Petitioner had not been terminated but had left the services without intimation or leave, and that he was never appointed against any sanctioned and aided post.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held 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 in such circumstances compliance of Section 18 of the Act in mandatory.”
The Bench remarked, “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.”
“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,” the Court explained.
The Bench held, “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 services of the petitioner have been terminated in quite arbitrary and illegal manner.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “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 respondentinstitution 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.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Abdul Rahim v. The Managing Committee Islamia Senior Secondary School & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:17901)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Prahlad Singh
Respondents: Advocate Madhukar Tiwari; Anjum Parveen Salawat for Deputy GC Namita Parihar