Termination of an employee under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act requires prior approval from the Director of Education, ensuring procedural safeguards are followed.

ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, these matters are taken up together for final disposal and are being decided by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the prayer mentioned in SB Civil Writ Petition No.19107/2023 has been taken into consideration, which reads as under:-

“(I) This writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal may kindly be quashed and set-aside by issuing the writ of Certiorari.

(II) Such other further order, directions or relief as may be deemed to be just and proper may kindly be passed in favor of the Humble Petitioners’ institution.”

3. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) by which appeal filed by the respondent No.1 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 08.03.2021 from the post of Class-IV employee has been quashed and set-aside and a direction has been issued to the petitioner-management to reinstate him, with continuity in service along-with 50% back-wages and other allowances.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management submits that the respondent No.1 was engaged on the post of Class-IV employee in the hostel mess of the petitioner-management, but due to COVID 19 Pandemic, the hostel and the mess facilities were closed and, thereafter, the post of the staff in the mess facility was abolished and, accordingly, services of the respondent were discontinued, as the same were not required by the petitioner- management. Learned counsel submits that the respondent- employees assailed the aforesaid action of the petitioner- management before the Tribunal by way of filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 and the same was allowed by the Tribunal by passing the order impugned holding that there was non-compliance of Section 18 of the Act of 1989. The provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 were not applicable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as there was no order of dismissal or removal of the respondent instead the post upon which he was working was abolished and, accordingly, the order impugned was passed. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set- aside. In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.S. Jain Subhodh Shiksha Samiti Versus Seema Daya & others while deciding D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.717/2002 vide order dated 20.12.2016.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner- management and submitted that initially the respondent No.1 was appointed on temporary basis, but later on his services were confirmed by the Tribunal when he approached the Tribunal by way of filing an application in this regard. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No.1 was granted regular appointment on the post of Class-IV employee in the school of the petitioner- management and not in the hostel or mess. Learned counsel submits that since the date of confirmation of his services, the respondent-employee was discharging his duty but all of a sudden his salary was reduced to 25% at the time of spread of COVID 19 Pandemic. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid action of the petitioner-management was assailed by the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal by way of filing an application. Learned counsel subm