Prior approval from the Director of Education is mandatory for the termination of employees in recognized institutions, emphasizing the importance of due process and adherence to statutory provisions.

ORDER :

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.)

1. While deciding Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.14726/2024 titled as Army Public School Versus Arvind Bhandari, the Hon’ble Apex Court has issued directions to this Court vide order dated 16.04.2024 to decide the instant writ petition expeditiously.

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the counsel for the parties and the same is decided by this order.

3. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the Rajasthan Non- Governmental Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No.9/2016 by which the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1989”) has been allowed and his termination order dated 11.05.2016 has been quashed and set aside.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of misconduct of the respondent, an enquiry was conducted against him under the provisions contained under earlier Army Welfare Education Society Rules & Regulations (hereinafter referred to as “AWES Rules”) after affording him due opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submits that the respondent has cross-examined the witnesses and after taking into account the defence put by him, a decision was taken to dismiss him from service. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal submitted by the petitioner on a technical count that the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1993”) were not complied with. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order was passed by the petitioner on 11.05.2016 and at the relevant time, two different judgments, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. Versus State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2002 (8) SCC 481 and passed by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Central Academy Society Versus Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur & Ors. reported in 2010 SCC ONLINE Raj. 2382 were in existence, and the ratio as propounded in the above two cases was that while passing the order of termination, compliance of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 were not required. Learned counsel submits that the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Versus Director of Education & Ors. reported in 2016 (6) SCC 541 was delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 13.04.2016 whereby it was held that prior approval of Director of Education is necessary for termination of services of an employee. The said judgment was passed 28 days before passing of the present impugned order. Learned counsel submits that when the impugned order was passed, the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that after passing of the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court took a different view in the case of Kailash Singh Versus Managing Committee, Mayo College reported in 2018 (18) SCC 216 . Learned counsel submits that in the case of K