[2025:RJ-JP:19390] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12627/2018 1. J.K. Foundation for Human Development Society, through its Secretary, having its office at Sir Padampat Singhania School, Naya Nohra Baran Road, Kota. 2. Sir Padampat Singhania School, Naya Nohra Baran Road, Kota through its Principal 3. Varsha Singhania Chair Person J.K. Foundation for Human Development Society, having its office at Sir Padampat Singhania School, Naya Nohra Baran Road, Kota. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Inamur Rehman Son of Azizur Rehman, aged 47 years, resident of 3-Bha-52, Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Raj.) 2. The Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. with Mr. Anurag Mathur & Mr. Yashvardhan Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/05/2025 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 72/2015, whereby the appeal filed by the non-petitioner has been allowed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal. [2025:RJ-JP:19390] (2 of 7) [CW-12627/2018] 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal stating therein that he was initially appointed on the Post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Maths) on 01.12.2005 in Sir Padampat Singhania School, Naya Nohra Baran Road, Kota. It was submitted by the non-petitioner in his appeal that he had worked for around ten years in the institution run by the petitioners, however, without following the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1989’) and Rules made there under vide order dated 15.10.2025, his services were terminated. The non-petitioner prayed for quashing of order dated 15.10.2025 and sought reinstatement along with all consequential benefits. 3. The petitioners filed reply to the appeal in which it was mentioned that work and conduct of the non-petitioner was not satisfactory and there were several complaints against him. In the light of consistent complaints of parents and students, a resolution was taken by the management of petitioner institution to terminate with the services of the non-petitioner. It has been contended that the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 have been followed by the petitioners in the manner that on the date of termination six months salary in lieu of notice has been given to the non-petitioner and after termination of services of non-petitioner, the petitioners have also written one letter dated 02.12.2015 for granting approval with regard to above termination of the non-petitioner. 4. Mr. Rajveer Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while terminating the services of the non-petitioner, [2025:RJ-JP:19390] (3 of 7) [CW-12627/2018] since entire process has been followed by the petitioners, therefore, no interference was required by the Tribunal in the termination order, however, without examining pleadings of the parties, facts of the case, material available on record and law prevailing at the relevant time, the learned Tribunal has erroneously allowed the appeal filed by the non-petitioner and directions for reinstatement of non-petitioner has been given. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that even after rendering services for ten years, in quite arbitrary and illegal manner, vide order dated 15.10.2015 without following the procedure and rather by levelling allegations, services of the petitioner have been terminated. The learned Tribunal has meticulously examined the record as well as the relevant law and has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the non-petitioner. Hence, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected. 6. I have examined the record of the writ petition and have also heard the contentions of both the counsels. 7. The provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 are reproduced here as under:- “18. Removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees- Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, no employee of a recognised institution shall removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given by the management a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken : Provided that no final order in this regard shall be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained: Provided further that this section shall not apply - [2025:RJ-JP:19390] (4 of 7) [CW-12627/2018] (i) to a person who is dismissed or removed on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where it is not practicable or expedient to give that employee an opportunity of showing cause, the consent of Director of Education has been obtained in writing before the action is taken; or (iii) where the managing committee is of unanimous opinion that the services of an employee can not be continued services of such employee are terminated after giving him six months notice or salary in lieu thereof and the consent of the Director of Education is obtained in writing.” Rule 39. Removal or Dismissal from Service- (1)The services of an employee appointed temporarily for six months, may be terminated by the management at any time after giving at least one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. Temporary employee, who wishes to resign shall also give atleast one month's notice in advance or in lieu thereof deposit or surrender one month's salary to the management. (2) An employee, other than the employee referred to in sub-rule (1), may be removed or dismissed from service on the grounds of insubordination, inefficiency, neglect of duty, misconduct or any other grounds which makes the employee unsuitable for further retention in service. But the following procedure shall be adopted for the removal or dismissal of an employee : (a) A preliminary enquiry shall be held on the allegations coming into or brought to the notice of the management against the employee; (b) On the basis of the findings of the preliminary enquiry report, a charge sheet alongwith statement of allegations shall be issued to the employee and he shall be asked to submit his reply within a reasonable time; (c) After having pursued the preliminary enquiry report and the reply submitted by the employee, if any, if the managing committee is of the opinion that a detailed enquiry is required to be conducted, a three member committee shall be constituted by it in which a nominee of the Director of Education shall also be included; (d) During the enquiry by such enquiry committee the employee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to defend himself by means of written statement as well as by leading evidence, if any; [2025:RJ-JP:19390] (5 of 7) [CW-12627/2018] (e) The enquiry committee, after completion of the detailed enquiry, shall submit its report to the management committee; (f) If the managing committee, having regard to the findings of the enquiry committee on the charges, is of the opinion that the employee should be removed or dismissed from service, it shall - (i) furnish to the employee a copy of the report of the enquiry committee, (ii) give him a notice stating the penalty of removal or dismissal and call upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty; (g) In every case, the records of the enquiry together with a copy of notice given under sub-clause (f) (ii) above and the representation made in response to such notice if any, shall be forwarded by the managing committee to the Director of Education or an officer by authorised him in this behalf, for approval; (h) On receipt of the approval as mentioned in sub-clause (g) above, the managing committee may issue appropriate order of removal or dismissal as the case may be and forward a copy of such order to the employee concerned and also to the Director of Education or the officer authorised by him in this behalf : Provided that the provisions of this rule shall not apply - (i) to an employee who is removed or dismissed on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) where it is not practicable or expedient to give that employee an opportunity of showing cause, the consent of the Director of Education has been obtained in writing before the action is taken, or (iii) where the managing committee is of unanimous opinion that, the services of an employee can not be continued without prejudice to the interest of the institution, the services of such employee are terminated after giving him six months notice or salary in lieu thereof and the consent of the Director of Education is obtained in writing.” 8. Bare perusal of the above provisions of law would make it clear that even in the cases where management has based a [2025:RJ-JP:19390] (6 of 7) [CW-12627/2018] resolution for discontinuing services of any employee, which in the opinion of the institution, if continued, would be in the prejudicial interest of the institution, even then the services cannot be discontinued until and unless compliance of the provisions of Section 18 in Rule 39 are made in letter and spirit. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner institution was not receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government, therefore, provisions of Section 18 and Rule 39, for an institution not receiving grant-in-aid, are directory in nature and since substantial compliance has been made by the petitioners by paying six months salary in lieu of notice to the non-petitioner and even a request was made to the District Education Officer for granting approval, no fault can be attributed to their action. 10. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that in the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Gajanand Sharma Vs. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti' decided on 19.01.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 100-101/2023, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the provisions of the Act of 1989, it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even in the cases where grant-in-aid was not received by the institution and still the institution was recognized institution under the Act, compliance of Section 18 is mandatory in nature and in the cases where approval of Director of Education or his nominee is not taken, the action taken against the employee has been rendered illegal. 11. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of 'Central Academy Society Vs. Rajasthan Non-Government [2025:RJ-JP:19390] (7 of 7) [CW-12627/2018] Educational Institutions Tribunal, (2010) 3 WLC 21' where also even in the cases of recognized institution not receiving grant-in-aid compliance of provisions of Section 18 has been held to be mandatory. 12. Even otherwise, as per the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners they applied for approval subsequent to passing the order of termination in the instant case, hence, there was no occasion for the respondent- Government to grant approval in the instant case. Thus, it is clear that services of the petitioner were terminated against the mandatory provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993. 13. In the light of above and I do not find any error in the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 14. The petitioners are directed to make compliance of order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 15. Pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /162