The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid, and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993, do not apply to unaided schools like the petitioner school. The provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, govern the disciplinary proceedings of the employees of the petitioner school.

Headnote:
EDUCATION - NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1989 - SERVICE RULES - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - APPLICABILITY - UNAIDED SCHOOLS - EMPLOYEES - RECOGNIZED INSTITUTIONS - AIDED INSTITUTIONS - DISTINCTION - RULES FRAMED UNDER THE ACT - SCOPE - INTERPRETATION - HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION - EQUALITY CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, M.G.D. Girls School, Jaipur, is an unaided school that does not receive any grant-in-aid from the State. It is affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, and prepares candidates for examinations conducted by the Board. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Indu Bala, is a teacher employed by the petitioner school. The petitioner school initiated disciplinary proceedings against Smt. Indu Bala under clauses 27, 28, and 29 of the M.G.D. Girls School Service Rules. Smt. Indu Bala objected to the proposed disciplinary proceedings, contending that such an inquiry could only be held in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid, and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Educational Tribunal, Rajasthan, upheld Smt. Indu Bala's contention and set aside the order appointing Shri Mahendra Surana, RAS, as the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner school challenged this order in the High Court of Rajasthan.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Educational Tribunal erred in its decision. The Court observed that the Rules apply only to recognized institutions that receive grant-in-aid from the State or are affiliated with a Board or University in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner school, being an unaided school not receiving any grant-in-aid and not affiliated with any Board or University in Rajasthan, is not subject to the Rules. The Court further held that the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, govern the disciplinary proceedings of the employees of the petitioner school. The Court also clarified that the Rule-making authority could have framed rules to cover disciplinary matters against employees of unaided recognized schools but chose not to do so. The Court concluded that the Rules are not violative of the provisions of the Act or the equality clauses of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid, and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993, apply to unaided schools like the petitioner school? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, govern the disciplinary proceedings of the employees of the petitioner school? 3. Whether the Rules are violative of the provisions of the Act or the equality clauses of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Rules apply only to recognized institutions that receive grant-in-aid from the State or are affiliated with a Board or University in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner school, being an unaided school not receiving any grant-in-aid and not affiliated with any Board or University in Rajasthan, is not subject to the Rules. 2. The provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, govern the disciplinary proceedings of the employees of the petitioner school. 3. The Rules are not violative of the provisions of the Act or the equality clauses of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The High Court accepted the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the Educational Tribunal dated 09.12.1993, and held that Shri Mahendra Surana, Inquiry Officer, shall be entitled to proceed against Smt. Indu Bala in accordance with clauses 27, 28, and 29 of the MGD School Service Rules, keeping in view the provisions of Section 18 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

1. - Petitioners before us are the M.G.D. Girls School, Jaipur through its Principal and the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the said school. The school manages its own finances and does not receive any grant-in-aid from the State. It is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi and prepares candidates to take examinations of the said Board.

2. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India arises in the following manner. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Indu Bala is admittedly employed as a teacher under the petitioners. Purporting to act under clauses 27, 28 and 29 of the M. G. D. Girls School Service Rules, the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the said school issued memorandum (Annexure 1) dated 25.08.1993 to Mrs. Indu Bala Shrivastava along with a statement of allegations, on the basis of which a domestic disciplinary enquiry was proposed to be held against said Smt. Indu Bala. Smt. Indu Bala filed objections Annexure II and took exception to the proposed disciplinary proceedings and contended that such an enquiry could be held only in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter 'the Rules'). However, later on, Mrs. Indu Bala inspected the relevant record and submitted her detailed reply on 29.09.1993 (Annexure IV). Not satisfied with the reply, the petitioners proceeded to go ahead in the matter of disciplinary enquiry against said Indu Bala and appointed one, Mahendra Surana, RAS as Enquiry Officer. Indu Bala took exception to proposed enquiry to be conducted by Shri Surana and reiterated her stand that an enquiry could be held only in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and not otherwise. She eventually took the matter by way of an appeal filed under section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Educational Institutions Act, 1989 [Sic Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989] (hereinafter the 'Act') before the Educational Tribunal, Rajasthan constituted under the provisions of the said Act. The appeal was opposed on behalf of the petitioners who inter-alia contended that M. G. D. School was not an aided school and hence the provisions of the said Rules were not attracted and the petitioners were well within their powers to proceed with the enquiry.

3. The Educational Tribunal by its order dated 09.12.1993 upheld the contention of Indu Bala and set aside the order by which Shri Mahendra Surana was appointed as Enquiry Officer and held that the petitioners could proceed with the enquiry only in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and Rules and not otherwise. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenge the said order of the Educational Tribunal, through this writ petition.

4. Shri Prem Asopa filed his power on behalf of Indu Bala and put up appearance on 24.03.1994, when the writ petition was heard and admitted. Presumbly, looking to the far-reaching consequences which decision of the writ petition may have, notices were also ordered to be issued to the learned Advocate General, who has put in appearance in the matter in pursuance of the said notice.

5. Rajasthan Unaided Educational Institutions Employees Union (hereinafter the Union) claiming to be a representative Union of teachers of Unaided Educational Institutions moved an application dated 04.07.1994 through its President and Secretary to be allowed to be impleaded as a party to the writ petition. Likewise, Shri Prakash Chaturvedi, claiming to be president of the Rajasthan University Teachers Association (hereinafter 'the Association'), Jaipur moved an application to be impleaded as respondent to the writ petition. We allowed the applicant Union to intervene in the matter by order dated 15.07.1994.

6. The respondents have not filed any reply to the writ petitions and all concerned have argued the matter at length, issues involved being purely questions of law.

7. At this junc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1994 Supreme(Raj) 936

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHG.C.Mital, R.S.Verma, JJ.M.G.D. Girls School & Anr. - AppellantVersusEducation Tribunal & Smt. Indu Bala Srivastava - RespondentD.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1354 of 1994.Decided On : 28-10-1994

Cases Referred (7)

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.C.Mital, R.S.Verma, JJ.
M.G.D. Girls School & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Education Tribunal & Smt. Indu Bala Srivastava - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1354 of 1994.
Decided On : 28-10-1994