Termination of service in recognized institutions requires compliance with statutory provisions, including notice and inquiry, regardless of the employee's appointment status.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2000 passed by learned Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in application No. 111/1999 as well as dissatisfied with the action of termination of service w.e.f. 15.05.1999, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a further prayer to grant benefit of reinstatement along with all consequential benefits.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed in Respondent-non-Government Educational Institution on 16.09.1993. As per petitioner, respondent No.1 is a recognized and aided Institution, receiving grant in aid from the Government of Rajasthan for its recurring and non-recurring expenses.

3. As per the petitioner, he worked as Teacher in Primary Classes from 16.09.1993 to 31.01.1994 and for teaching the Senior Secondary Classes from 01.02.1994 to 14.05.1994. Thereafter, artificial break was given to him and an advertisement was issued in news-paper for inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III. As per petitioner, he submitted application pursuant to the advertisement and also appeared before the Interview Board constituted by the Institution. After undergoing process, he was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III on 27.07.1996. However again his services were dispensed with at the end of academic session 1996-97 w.e.f. 22.05.1997 and again in July, 1997, he was given re-appointment and at the end of session 1997-98, his services were again discontinued. As per petitioner, he was again appointed in the start of next academic session in July, 1998 and when he sought admissible leaves in May, 1999, the same were not granted and annoyed by a such demand of leave his services were dis-continued w.e.f. 15.05.1999.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the termination, petitioner filed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 with a prayer to quash and set aside the illegal action of the respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 15.05.1999 with directions of reinstatement along with continuity in service as well as other consequential benefits. He also prayed for granting pay fixation in revised pay scale of 1998 as well as to give benefit of PF and GPF and other service conditions admissible to an employee of Non- Government Institutions pursuant to the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 framed thereunder. He also made some other incidental prayers.

5. Reply to the application, filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, was filed by the respondent-Institution on 06.08.1999 in which, the stand of respondent was that services of the petitioner have not been terminated rather he himself has left the services without any intimation and without taking any leave. It was also submitted that petitioner was never appointed against any sanctioned and aided post. It has also been stated in reply to the application by the respondent that since services of the petitioner were never terminated, therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed.

6. Thereafter, without there being any direction of the Tribunal, at its own, the respondent-Institution filed an affidavit dated 26.10.1999, which was in support of reply to the application earlier filed by the respondent-institution and without there being any reference in the pleadings, as many as four documents were placed on record including one order dated 14.05.1999 showing that services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 15.05.1999.

7. Learned Tribunal decided the application vide order dated 14.07.2000, whereby the relief against termination of service w.e.f. 15.05.1999 was disallowed to the petitioner, however, by partially allowing the application benefit and deduction for the purpose of PF under Rule 68 of the Rules of 1993 was granted to the petitioner.

8. Feeling aggrieved to the extent of rejecting the application qua the term