The main legal point established in the judgment is that a non-Government recognized educational institution is covered under the Act of 1989, and non-compliance with Section 18 renders dismissal/termination orders void.

Headnote:
Non-Government Educational Institution - Employment Dismissal - Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, Sections 2(c), 2(p), 2(q), 3, 18, 40 - The court upheld the dismissal orders against the respondents, finding that the institution is a non-Government recognized institution and thus covered under the Act of 1989. The court also held that Section 18 of the Act applies to both disciplinary action and simple termination, and non-compliance with its provisions renders dismissal/termination orders void.
Fact of the Case:

The respondents were dismissed from their positions at a non-Government recognized educational institution. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal orders, which was upheld by the Single Judge. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the institution was not covered by the Act of 1989 and that the rules and regulations of the Society should apply.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the institution is covered under the Act of 1989 and upheld the dismissal orders. It also held that Section 18 applies to both disciplinary action and simple termination, and non-compliance with its provisions renders dismissal/termination orders void. The court directed the appellants to provide 50% back wages to the respondents and make pay fixation within a specified period.
Issues: The issues revolved around the coverage of the institution under the Act of 1989, the applicability of Section 18, and the validity of the dismissal orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Act of 1989, specifically Sections 2(c), 2(p), 2(q), 3, 18, and 40, and its application to the non-Government recognized institution. The court also emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 18 and the consequences of non-compliance.
Final Decision: The court upheld the dismissal orders, directed the appellants to provide 50% back wages to the respondents, and specified timelines for pay fixation and post-retiral benefits.

JUDGMENT

1. - In all the aforesaid five special appeals, common order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.11.2001 is under challenge whereby the common judgment dated 06.06.2001 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') settingaside the dismissal order against the respondents, has been upheld. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken into consideration that for adjudication the question involved in the five writ petitions is one and the same and disposed of the same by a common order. We are also disposing of these five special appeals by this common judgment for the aforesaid reasons.

2. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows :

Smt. Pushpa Sharma (respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 62/2002 ) was appointed on the post of Teacher and was confirmed on 1.7.1992. She was dismissed from service on 02.09.1997. Smt. Snehlata Sharma (respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 202/2002) was appointed as a Primary Teacher in Hindi subject and she was dismissed from service by order dated 20.08.1997.

Mrs. Ella Boss (respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 203/2002) was appointed as Music Teacher and was confirmed on 16.12.1994. She was dismissed from service on 26.8.1997.

Smt. Mamti Rani Pathak (respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 204/2002) was appointed as Librarian and was confirmed on the post on 23.11.1995. She was dismissed from service by order dated 20.8.1997.

Smt. Manju Bhatnagar (respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 205/2002) was appointed as a Lab Assistant in the appellant's School and was confirmed on the post on 23.11.1995. She was dismissed from service by order dated 22.08.1997.

3. Against the aforesaid dismissal orders of the respondents, they filed separate appeals before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur and the Tribunal vide its common order dated 06.06.2001 allowed the appeals and set- aside the orders of dismissal of the respondents from service and further granted continuance in service with all service benefits.

4. Against the said judgment of the Tribunal dated 06.06.2001, the appellant-Society filed five writ petitions which were dismissed by this Court vide common order dated 08.11.2001 holding that petitioner No. 2, the Institution is a recognised institution, therefore, the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989'), will apply and admittedly there was no compliance of Section 18 of the said Act, therefore, order of dismissal from service is valid and all the writ petitions have been dismissed without any order as to costs.

5. Some other relevant facts on the basis of which the submissions have been made by the counsel for the appellants are that the petitioner-Society has been constituted with the aims and object amongst others to create and develop educational and technical training facilities at military stations to meet the needs of the children of army personnel including Ex. serviceman. The said Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and have also framed its rules and regulations which inter alia prescribe the simple termination and dismissal by way of disciplinary action under Chapter-9 after show cause notice followed by three months' salary on not satisfied with reply to the notice. It has been further stated that they have not taken any recognition from the Government as required under Section 3 of the Act of 1989, therefore, the institution-Society will not be covered by the Act of 1989 and further in the special appeal an attempt has been made by raising legal question that Section 18 is applicable only when the action is taken as penal in nature which is not there in these cases to come out of the clutches of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and much emphasis has been laid in the pleadings and contentions that the rules and regulations framed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document