Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Non-application of Section 18 to Unaided Institutions - The provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, do not necessarily apply to unaided institutions. Several judgments clarify that unaided recognized institutions are exempt from certain mandatory compliance under Section 18, especially if they have not received aid from the government. For instance, it was held that the said institute has never received any 'aid' as per the provisions of Section 2(a) read with Section 2(t) of the Act of 1989 and thus, the petitioner-appellant does not fall within the ambit of an 'aided institution' ["Managing Committee, Tegor Bal Niketan Samiti, Through Its Secretary VS Sh. P. k. Sharma, S/o. Sh. Raghuveer Sharma - Rajasthan"]. Similarly, courts have emphasized that non-Government recognized unaided institutions are not bound by all provisions of Section 18, particularly those that are in mandatory form ["RAMAVATAR SHARMA vs R N G E I TRIBUNAL JAIPUR - Rajasthan"].
Recognition and Compliance - Recognition under the Act is a prerequisite for certain obligations; however, unaided institutions that are recognized but do not receive aid are often exempted from some provisions. As noted, even while the first proviso to Section 18 of the Act of 1989 would not apply in disciplinary actions by unaided private educational institutions, the other provisions of Section 18, including the principal provisions, do apply ["CENTRAL ACADEMY SOCIETY VS RAJASTHAN NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TRIBUNAL JAIPUR - Rajasthan"]. The courts have held that recognition alone does not impose all the obligations of aided institutions, especially if the institution is unaided and recognized, but not receiving aid ["Abdul Rahim son of Shri Deen Mohammad vs Managing Committee Islamia Senior Secondary School, Sikar through its Manager - Rajasthan"].
Legal Interpretations and Supreme Court Rulings - The Supreme Court and high courts have clarified that certain provisions of the RTE Act and the Rajasthan Act do not apply to unaided minority or non-minority institutions, especially if they are recognized but not aided. For example, Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009 alone shall not apply to aided and unaided minority schools, and the RTE Act was not applicable to any unaided educational institution – whether minority or non-minority – as it infringed their Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1) of the Constitution ["Committee of Management Adarsh College of Education v. State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court"]. The courts have also recognized that compliance with Section 12(1)(c) need not come at the cost of eroding the minority character of the school ["Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court"].
Conclusion - Overall, the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, are not mandatory for unaided institutions that are recognized but have not received government aid. Such institutions are exempt from certain compliance requirements, especially those related to grant-in-aid, accounts, and audit, unless explicitly mandated or recognized as aided. The legal framework and judicial interpretations support the view that unaided, recognized institutions are not obligated to adhere to all provisions applicable to aided institutions, maintaining their autonomy and minority rights where applicable ["Managing Committee, Tegor Bal Niketan Samiti, Through Its Secretary VS Sh. P. k. Sharma, S/o. Sh. Raghuveer Sharma - Rajasthan"] ["RAMAVATAR SHARMA vs R N G E I TRIBUNAL JAIPUR - Rajasthan"].
References:- ["Managing Committee, Tegor Bal Niketan Samiti, Through Its Secretary VS Sh. P. k. Sharma, S/o. Sh. Raghuveer Sharma - Rajasthan"]- ["RAMAVATAR SHARMA vs R N G E I TRIBUNAL JAIPUR - Rajasthan"]- ["CENTRAL ACADEMY SOCIETY VS RAJASTHAN NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TRIBUNAL JAIPUR - Rajasthan"]- ["Abdul Rahim son of Shri Deen Mohammad vs Managing Committee Islamia Senior Secondary School, Sikar through its Manager - Rajasthan"]- ["Committee of Management Adarsh College of Education v. State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court"]
Running an unaided educational institution in Rajasthan? One common question arises: Does compliance with Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (NGEI Act) need to be followed if the institution is unaided? This provision governs the removal, dismissal, or reduction in rank of employees, emphasizing fair procedures like providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
While unaided institutions enjoy greater autonomy under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as highlighted in landmark cases like TMA Pai Foundation, they are not entirely exempt. This blog post breaks down the nuances, drawing from Rajasthan High Court judgments and Tribunal decisions. Note: This is general information based on case law; consult a legal expert for specific advice.
Section 18 mandates that no employee of a recognized non-government educational institution—whether aided or unaided—can be removed, dismissed, or reduced in rank without:- A reasonable opportunity to be heard.- Compliance with specific provisos, including prior written consent from the Director of Education (or authorized officer) in certain cases. Kailash Singh VS Managing Committee, Mayo College, Ajmer - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 860M. G. D. Girls School VS Education Tribunal & Smt. Indu Bala Srivastava - 1994 0 Supreme(Raj) 936Management Committee, Shri Mahaveer Digamber Jain Balika Sr. Secondary School, Jaipur VS Pratibha Agrawal - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 702
The first proviso requires prior approval before issuing a final dismissal order. However, a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Central Academy Society v. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal clarified: even while the first proviso to Section 18 of the Act of 1989 would not apply in the disciplinary action by the unaided private educational institution, the other provisions of Section 18 are, without any doubt, applicable to all the institutions aided or unaided. Management Committee, Shri Mahaveer Digamber Jain Balika Sr. Secondary School, Jaipur VS Pratibha Agrawal - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 702
This regulatory framework ensures procedural fairness without unduly interfering with autonomy.
Rajasthan High Court rulings consistently affirm Section 18's reach:
Additional precedents reinforce this:- In a case involving termination approval, the court upheld DEO authorization under Section 2(f): the approval of the DEO was valid as the definition of 'Director of Education' under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1989 includes 'any other officer authorised by him'. M. C. , Kashi Bai Chagan Lal Zaveri Sr. Secondary School, Jaipur VS Smt. Jaishree Dave - 2015 Supreme(Raj) 1726- Another ruling dismissed a writ where termination violated Section 18 by lacking hearing opportunity and approval: Provisions of Section 18... were violated, which postulates such opportunity of hearing be afforded. Managing Committee, Swami Keshwanand Mahavidyalaya VS Indra Gyan Punia - 2014 Supreme(Raj) 1057- Ex parte Tribunal orders were set aside only if Section 18 compliance was absent, but courts stressed mandatory approval. Lal Bahadur Shastri Educational Society, Jodhpur VS Rajasthan Non - 2011 Supreme(Raj) 1526CENTRAL ACADEMY SOCIETY vs RAJ.NON-GOVT.EDU.INST.TRI.and ORS
These cases show tribunals frequently order reinstatement for violations, upheld by the High Court.
While most of Section 18 binds unaided institutions, exceptions include:- First Proviso: No prior final order approval needed. Management Committee, Shri Mahaveer Digamber Jain Balika Sr. Secondary School, Jaipur VS Pratibha Agrawal - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 702- CBSE/Non-State Board Affiliation: Core Section 18 applies; rules like 1993 may not fully. M. G. D. Girls School VS Education Tribunal & Smt. Indu Bala Srivastava - 1994 0 Supreme(Raj) 936- No Blanket Exemption: Proviso (iii) consent is non-negotiable, even unanimously. Kailash Singh VS Managing Committee, Mayo College, Ajmer - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 860- Minority Institutions: Some RTE Act provisions (e.g., Sections 12(1)(c), 18) may have limited application to avoid Article 30 infringement, but NGEI Act Section 18 generally holds unless specified otherwise. Related rulings note TET qualifications apply, affirming regulatory oversight. State of Tamil Nadu vs K.Bashiri - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 2735
Unrecognized institutions or closures (e.g., post-recognition expiry) may sidestep Section 14/18, but recognized ones cannot. UDAI SHANKAR GOSH VS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN - 2015 Supreme(Raj) 111
To avoid Tribunal challenges and reinstatement:1. Verify Recognition: Confirm status under NGEI Act Section 2(q). UDAI SHANKAR GOSH VS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN - 2015 Supreme(Raj) 1112. Document Hearings: Always provide show-cause notices and hearings.3. Seek Consent: Obtain written Director/DEO approval for proviso (iii) terminations. M. C. , Kashi Bai Chagan Lal Zaveri Sr. Secondary School, Jaipur VS Smt. Jaishree Dave - 2015 Supreme(Raj) 17264. Follow Inquiries: Use Rule 39 for disciplinary probes. Management Committee, Shri Mahaveer Digamber Jain Balika Sr. Secondary School, Jaipur VS Pratibha Agrawal - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 7025. Notice/Pay: Ensure six months' notice or equivalent, post-consent.
Failure often leads to: Invalid orders, back wages, reinstatement. Managing Committee, Swami Keshwanand Mahavidyalaya VS Indra Gyan Punia - 2014 Supreme(Raj) 1057
Section 18 is 'regulatory', not punitive, aligning with TMA Pai principles. It prevents maladministration while respecting unaided autonomy under Article 19(1)(g). Courts reject ultra vires challenges to similar provisions. Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke Samajvikas Prathisthan VS State of Maharashtra - 2012 Supreme(Bom) 1561Laxmibai Shantaram Doke Samajvikas Prathisthan VS State of Maharashtra - 2012 Supreme(Bom) 1570
This framework protects employees while allowing institutional flexibility. Stay updated via Rajasthan High Court and Tribunal rulings. For tailored guidance, contact a Rajasthan education law specialist.
References:1. Kailash Singh VS Managing Committee, Mayo College, Ajmer - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 860: Mayo College non-compliance.2. Management Committee, Shri Mahaveer Digamber Jain Balika Sr. Secondary School, Jaipur VS Pratibha Agrawal - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 702: Full Bench on provisos.3. M. G. D. Girls School VS Education Tribunal & Smt. Indu Bala Srivastava - 1994 0 Supreme(Raj) 936: CBSE schools.4. Others as cited.
#RajasthanEducationLaw, #UnaidedSchools, #Section18NGEI
The said institute has never received any “aid” as per the provisions of Section 2(a) read with Section 2(t) of the Act of 1989 and thus, the petitioner-appellant does not fall within the ambit of an “aided institution” as per Section 2(b) of the Act of 1989. ... Non-Government recognized unaided institutions.” ... Therefore, in this background viz-a-viz the unaided and nongovern....
Firstly, for non-compliance of the mandate of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, is not attracted in the instant case at hand. ... Rajasthan Non-Government institution but the other provisions of Section 18 of non #H....
Even the order of recognition dated 17.7.2000 issued by NCTE specifically contemplates the need for the institution to comply with and fulfil the requirement of the affiliating body and State Government, in addition to the conditions of NCTE.' ... Admission. - (1) Every admission to an aided or unaided educational institution, shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder and every admissio....
1 2(1)(c) and Section 1 8(3) of RTE Act, 2009 alone shall not apply to such aided and unaided minority schools. ... When we examine the 2009 Act, we find that under Section 1 2(1)(c) read with Section 2 (n)(iv) of the Act, an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority is required to admit in class I, to the ext....
The next question that arises for determination is whether Section 12(1)(c) of the 2009 Act impedes the right of the non-minority to establish and administer an unaided educational institution? ... 35. ... No part of Section 18(1),18(5),19(1) & 19(5) of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act,2009 (referred to as 2009 Act, hereafter) can be seen as ultra-vires & violative of Art.....
The next question that arises for determination is whether Section 12(1)(c) of the 2009 Act impedes the right of the non-minority to establish and administer an unaided educational institution? ... 35. ... No part of Section 18(1),18(5),19(1) & 19(5) of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act,2009 (referred to as 2009 Act, hereafter) can be seen as ultra-vires & violative of Art. ....
By admitting a non- member into it the minority institution does not shed its character and cease to be a minority institution. ... The minority view held that the RTE Act was not applicable to any unaided educational institution – whether minority or non-minority – as it infringed their Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1) of the Constitution. 36. ... However, difference of opinion arose as to the ....
to comply the mandatory provisions of law. ... 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution (Recognition ... Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions (DB Civil Special dated 16.5.2002 in non#HL_END....
18 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred Section 18 ibid to the unaided institutions. ... These other provisions of Section 18 do apply, as they are and in mandatory form, to unaided institution as well. ... covered by the provisions of the Act of 198....
18 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred Section 18 ibid to the unaided institutions. ... These other provisions of Section 18 do apply, as they are and in mandatory form, to unaided institution as well. ... covered by the provisions of the Act of 198....
Teacher, was found vitiated for non-compliance of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act of 1989'). The petitioner- employer, vide order dated 25th November, 2000, again terminated the services of the respondent-Teacher, which became subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal, adjudicated upon vide impugned order dated 4th March, 2002, whereby the order of termination of the respondent-
3. Section 14 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act of 1989'), provides for closure of the recognized institutions. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act of 1989, provides as follows:-
Provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Offering cheque of Rs. 1,10,450/- for salary in lieu of notice period of six months was wholly illegal and did not satisfy the requirement of law as salary for the period from 01.01.2004 except the period from April to September, 2005, was not yet paid. Act, 1989 were violated, which postulates such opportunity of hearing be afforded to the affected employee. The management has not granted an opportunity of hearing to the respondent prior to passing the order of termination.
On the last date of hearing preliminary objection was raised by counsel for petitioner that order of the Tribunal discloses that counsel appeared on behalf of petitioner and argued the matter but what has been recorded is factually incorrect and from the record it reveals that no-one appeared on behalf of petitioner before the Education Tribunal and reply filed before the Tribunal was also not considered and since two appeals were disposed of by common judgment the pleadings of another case has been taken note of while examining the controversy. Taking note of the submissions made and the fa....
Said Judge dated 18.09.1999 was passed ex parte because, inspite of service, none appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner institution. Thereafter, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 , read with Section 151, C.P.C. was filed. The said appeal was allowed by the Tribunal filed by respondent employee solely on the ground that before terminating the services of the respondent-employee. who was working on the post of Teacher, compliance of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 was not made.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
