The court affirmed that all employees, including those on temporary contracts, are entitled to protections under Section 18 of the Act, requiring notice and approval for termination.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

INDEX

(1) Prelude

(2) Submissions by counsel for petitioner

(3) Submissions by counsel for respondents

(4) Discussions & Analysis

(5) Judgments referred

(6) Conclusion & Directions

Prelude:

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and the instant writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These writ petitions have been preferred against the common judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’) by which the appeals preferred by the respondents under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act of 1989’) have been allowed and their termination orders have been quashed and set aside with direction for their reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts and prayer pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3668/2017 is taken into consideration. The instant writ petition has been submitted with the following prayer:

“a) By appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 14.09.2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

4. By way of filing the instant writ petitions, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal on a technical point that provisions of Sections 18 of the Act of 1989 & Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rule, 1993 (for short ‘Rules of 1993’) are not applicable in the case of employees who are appointed purely on contract basis.

Submissions by counsel for petitioner:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the respondent-employees were appointed for a fixed term in their service tenure, purely on contract basis and at the end of their term, their services were terminated with effect from 06.05.2015. Counsel submits that these employees were not selected or appointed through regular selection process, as contained under the Act of 1989 and the provisions contained under the Rules of 1993. Counsel submits that under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 details regarding the provision of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees are mentioned but in the instant case, the employees were neither removed or dismissed nor their rank was reduced, hence, under these circumstances, they were not entitled to file applications under Section 21 before the Tribunal. In fact, such applications, submitted by them, were not maintainable but the same were erroneously admitted by the Tribunal, in consequence of which the order impugned has been passed, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

6. In support of her contentions counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments:

1) Shri Jatin Swetambar Terapanthi Manav Hitkari Sangh & Ors. vs. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3610/2003

2) Dr. Sadhana Godika vs. The Managing Committee & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2014

3) Managing Committee, Shri Bhawani Mahavidyalaya, Sikar & Anr. vs. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8704/2009

4) Ramavtar Sharma vs. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4868/1998

5.) Dr. Sadhana Godika vs. Managing Committee, Agarwal Shikshak Parshikshan Mahavidhyalaya, Jaipur through General Secretary/Secretary & Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.878/2016 decided on 25.10.2017

6.) Principal & Ors. vs. Presiding Officer & & Ors. reported in 1978 AIR 344.

7. Counsel submits that in vi