Reinstatement is not an automatic remedy for illegal termination; monetary compensation may be awarded based on employee’s context, such as age and duration of service.

JUDGMENT :

Anand Sharma, J.

1. The present writ petition is directed against judgment dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby termination order dated 29.12.1997 passed by the petitioner, terminating services of the respondent No. 1 was held to be in violation of the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1989'), and the petitioner–Management was directed to reinstate Respondent No. 1 with continuity of service and consequential benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the Management has invoked the supervisory and extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, reveals that Respondent No. 1 was although initially appointed by the petitioner- management as Teacher on a fixed salary of Rs. 3000/- per month with effect from 24.09.1994 vide order dated 23.09.1994, yet later on, he was appointed in the regular pay scale of Rs. 1400- 2600, which was a pay scale of Senior Teacher and he continued to draw salary in the above pay scale till termination of his services vide order dated 29.12.1997. Feeling aggrieved by the termination, Respondent No. 1 filed appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 before the Tribunal. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 16.10.2001, while recording a finding that the mandatory requirements of the provisions of the Act of 1989 were not complied with, set aside termination order dated 29.12.1997 and directed for reinstatement of Respondent No. 1 along with continuity in service and all consequential benefits.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. While admitting the writ petition, an interim order dated 26.03.2008 was passed by this court, whereby operation of judgment dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Tribunal was stayed.

4. Thereafter, this writ petition was heard by the co- ordinate Bench of this court on 02.07.2025 and after hearing both the sides, following order was passed:-

“This writ petition preferred by the managing committee of a non-Government educational institution assails the legality and validity of the judgment dated 16.10.2001 passed by Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1/appellant, the order of termination of his services dated 29.12.1997 was set aside and it was held that he would be treated to be continued in services with all consequential benefits.

The facts are not in dispute and the judgment is assailed only on legal principle as to whether the order of termination of services of a regular employee passed without approval of the authority competent to approve the appointment, is valid in law or not.

Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Insitutions Act, 1989 read with Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 framed thereunder as also Rule 30 of the Rules provide that where services of an employee are terminated after an enquiry or without enquiry under Section 18 proviso (iii) or Rule 39 proviso (iii) or under Rule 30, prior permission of the authority mentioned therein is the condition precedent. Their Lordships have held in the case of Gajanand Sharma Vs. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti and Others: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 54 that where the statute provides prior approval of the authority concerned as a condition precedent before terminating the services of an employee of a Non-Government Educational Institution, its absence would render the order of terminatio