HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9149/2002 Leela Ram Gupta S/o Shri Parshram, 23/633, Blue Castle, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur. 2. Managing Committee Arya Putri Senior Secondary School, Ajmer Through Its Secretary. 3. State Of Rajasthan Through Director School Education, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/02/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 04.09.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), by which the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the order dated 09.08.1997 passed by the respondent under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') has been rejected. 2. Contents of the petition indicate that the petitioner was engaged as Lower Divisional Clerk with the respondent No.2 on 16.10.1987 and thereafter, he discharged the duties of (2 of 3) [CW-9149/2002] Cashier and on 09.08.1987 his services were terminated. Accordingly, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989. However, the same was rejected by the Tribunal by holding that the petitioner was not selected on regular basis, rather he was appointed on part time basis on a consolidated pay. Thrice, he appeared before the selection committee of respondent No.2 for regularization of his services, but in absence of the requisite qualification, his services were not regularized and accordingly, a decision was taken to dispense his services. The petitioner raised an argument before the Tribunal and before this Court that before passing the order impugned, the mandatory provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non Government Education Institution Rules, 1993 (for short 'the Rules of 1993') were not complied with. 3. A conjoint reading of both provisions i.e. Section 18 and Rule 39 demonstrates that before passing an order of termination of service of an employee working in an aided institution, prior approval/ consent of the Director of Education is required. 4. It is worthy to note here that the aforesaid procedure is required to be followed only in those cases where the employees in such institutions have been appointed through a regular selection processes on a sanctioned post. 5. In the instant case, the appointment of the petitioner was on a non-sanctioned post and that too was on part time (3 of 3) [CW-9149/2002] basis and the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Lower Divisional Clerk, that is why his services were terminated by the management, hence, this Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, which warrants any interference of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/20