1. - As identical questions of law and fact are involved in these Writ Petitions, I propose to dispose them by a common order.

2. Services of the Employee-respondents (for short the 'employees') were terminated by the employer Petitioner (for short the 'employer') vide orders dated November 9, 2000. The employees preferred appeals against the said orders of termination before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur (for short the Tribunal). Learned Tribunal vide judgments dated January 10, 2002 allowed the appeals. The employer in the instant Writ Petitions seeks to quash these orders dated January 10, 2002 of the Tribunal.

3. Mr. A. K. Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate vociferously criticised the impugned orders and made following submissions :

(i) The tribunal has committed serious breach of law in holding that the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act 1989 (for short 1989 Act) are applicable to the instant matters. Mayo College is not affiliated to University or any authority of the State Government. It is not a recognised institution as defined in section 2(q) of the 1989 Act. Even otherwise Mayo College has framed the Rules for its employees and they are governed by these rules.

(ii) Alternatively without prejudice to the above, the termination orders were based on the unanimous opinion of the Committee as the continuance of the employees was prejudicial to the interest of the institution. The employees were paid three months salary as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Rules and Regulations of the Mayo College and thereafter salary of another three months was deposited in the Bank Account of the employees. Thus provisions contained in Section 18 of 1989 Act were fully complied with.

(iii) Relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to the employees as the Employer has completely lost his confidence in the employees.

4. The case law on which reliance was placed shall be referred at appropriate juncture.

5. Per contra Mr. D.P. Sharma and Mrs. Anupama Chaturvedi supported the impugned judgments of the Tribunal and canvassed that provisions of Section 18 of 1989 Act are fully applicable to Mayo College and the orders of termination were rightly set aside by the Tribunal.

6. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions. Section 18 of 1989 Act relates to removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees. It reads thus :

"18. Removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees - Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf no employee of a recognised institution shall be removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given by the management a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken :

Provided that no final order in this regard shall be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained :

Provided further that this section shall not apply,

(i) to a person who is dismissed or removed on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge or,

(ii) Where it is not practicable or expedient to give that employee an opportunity of showing cause, the consent of Director of Education has been obtained in writing before the action is taken, or

(iii) where the Managing Committee is of unanimous opinion that the services of an employee can not be continued without prejudice to the interest of the institution, the services of such employee are terminated after giving him six months notice or salary in lieu thereof and the consent of the Director of Education is obtained in writing."

"Recognised Institution" as defined under sub-section 2(q) of 1989 Act means a non-Government educational institution affiliated to any University or recognised by the Board, Director of Education or any officer authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf.
As