The approval of the DEO was valid for the termination of the respondent-teacher's employment under Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989 as the DEO was an officer authorized by the Director of Education to perform the functions under the Act.

1. - Kashi Bai Chhagan Lal Zaveri Sr. Secondary School, Jaipur ('petitioner-employer', for short), is aggrieved of the judgement dated 4th March, 2002, passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') and therefore, has instituted the present writ petition, praying for the following relief(s) :

"a) the impugned judgement dated 4th March, 2002 passed by the learned Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside.

b) the order passed by the petitioner dated 25.11.2000 may kindly be declared to be legally correct.

c) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper any also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the respondent-Teacher (Smt. Jaishree Dave), was initially appointed as 'Craft Teacher' on 15th July, 1993. Since she was not allowed the pay-scale of Teacher Grade-Ill, she instituted proceeding before the Tribunal. The Tribunal made an order in favour of the respondent-Teacher holding that she was in possession of the necessary educational qualifications. On a challenge to the order made by the petitioner-employer, by institution of SBCWP No. 5 5691/1994, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, on 12th October, 1995, dismissing the writ application, held the respondent-Teacher to be in possession of the required educational qualifications and confirmed the order of the Tribunal dismissing the writ application with a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner- employer, vide order dated 25th November, 2000, again terminated the services of the respondent-Teacher, which became subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal, adjudicated upon vide impugned order dated 4th March, 2002, whereby the order of termination of the respondent- Teacher, was found vitiated for non-compliance of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act of 1989').

3. Learned Senior counsel, Mr. R.K. Mathur, assisted by Mr. Ajay Tantia, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, has assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, for the Tribunal committed a gross error of law and fact, while recording a finding that mandate of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, was not complied with.

4. According to the learned counsel, the post of 'Craft Teacher' was abolished in the year, 1992. The respondent-Teacher was not fit for appointment to any other post on account of efficient of educational qualifications, and therefore, the Managing Committee of the petitioner-institute was of unanimous opinion that services of the respondent-Teacher could not be continued without prejudice to the interest of the institution. Accordingly, permission was sought from the Director of Education, as contemplated under Section 18 of he Act of 1989, as would be evident from Annexure R/1/7, dated 30th September, 2000. The Director of Education, in turn, informed the petitioner-institute, vide communication dated 6th November, 2000, that powers under the Act of 1989, and the Rules made thereunder, have been deligated to the 'District Education Officer'. The petitioner-institute addressed a communication to the 'District Education is Officer (Secondary), Jaipur-I', Jaipur, for approval of termination of the employment of the respondent-teacher, vide communication, dated 7th November, 2000, as would be evident from Annexure-R-1/10). The approval was accorded by the 'District Education Officer', vide communication dated 16th November, 2000 (Annexure-R/1/11).

5. Assailing the finding recorded by the Tribunal for non-compliance of the mandate of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, learned counsel emphasised that a glance of Section 2(f) of the Act of 1989, which defines "Director of Education", would revea