Prior approval from the Director of Education Department is required before terminating the services of an employee of a non-government educational institution under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989.

1. - This writ petition has been filed by Managing Committee of Swami Keshwanand Mahavidyalaya through its Secretary against judgment of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 29.08.2011. The Tribunal, by aforesaid judgment, has allowed the appeal of respondent Indra Gyan Punia and set aside the order of his removal dated 30.06.2006 passed by writ petitioner directing for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

2. The respondent in his appeal filed before the Tribunal asserted that he, upon being duly selected, was appointed as Lecturer in ABST subject of commerce faculty of the petitioner college on 06.08.1984. He always discharged the duties to the best of satisfaction of the management committee of the petitioner-institution. He was initially appointed in the pay scale of 700-1600, which was revised from time to time as per UGC norms. However, the petitioner-institution did not revise the pay scale following the recommendation of 5th pay commission report. Petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal on 27.11.2002 seeking a direction to the petitioner-institution to accordingly revise his pay as per 5th pay commission report, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 27.11.2002. Even then, petitioner did not comply with that direction to revise his pay and did not grant him benefit of pay revision from 01.01.2004 onwards. Taking annoyance from these facts, the petitioner management served an order to the petitioner on 30.06.2006 mentioning therein that in furtherance to resolution dated 27.04.2006 of the management committee, services of the respondent are terminated with effect from 30.06.2006. A cheque of Rs. 1,10,450/- dated 29.06.2006 was also enclosed with that letter for salary in lieu of notice period of six months.

3. It was further asserted by the respondent before the Tribunal that the petitioner-institution was recognised by the State Government and availing grant-in-aid from them. The management has not granted an opportunity of hearing to the respondent prior to passing the order of termination. Provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 were violated, which postulates such opportunity of hearing be afforded to the affected employee. Offering cheque of Rs. 1,10,450/- for salary in lieu of notice period of six months was wholly illegal and did not satisfy the requirement of law as salary for the period from 01.01.2004 except the period from April to September, 2005, was not yet paid. Hence, his salary remained unpaid for more than two years. Prior approval of the Director of Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan has not been obtained, which, as per Section 18 of the Act of 1989, is the condition for passing any such order of removal. The appeal before the Tribunal was contested by the petitioner, who filed reply thereto contesting all the pleas both on facts and law.

4. Shri Sudeep Mathur, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that number of students in the commerce faculty was decreasing and the financial condition of the petitioner-institution was worsening day by day. The management committee passed a resolution on 22.32.2006 to close down the commerce faculty with effect from July, 2006 and thereafter passed another resolution on 27.04.2006 terminating services of the Lecturers, who were working on commerce faculty, including the respondent. No grant-in-aid was received against the post on which the respondent was appointed. When the management approached the Director of the College Education of the Government of Rajasthan for approval to terminate the services of the respondent, the petitioner-institution was informed by letter dated 26.04.2006 that the petitioner was free to take decision at its own level and the State Government has no role to play in this regard. It was contended that when the decision has been taken to close down the commerce faculty in the petitioner