[2026:RJ-JP:1053] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20117/2025 1. Managing Committee, Naveen Shiksha Samiti, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan Through Its Secretary. 2. Naveen Shiksha Samiti, Through Its Mantri, Nasiyan Colony, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Raju Lal Koli S/o Shri Poonam Chand Koli, R/o Subhash Colony, Near Onkar Ki Chakki, Kolipada, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 2. Director Of Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 12/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Respondent No.1 was a temporary employee and, therefore, the mandatory provisions of Section 18 and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1989') were not applicable. It is urged that no prior approval from the Director of Education, Rajasthan, was required [2026:RJ-JP:1053] (2 of 4) [CW-20117/2025] before termination. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that Respondent No.1 had been gainfully employed elsewhere since 2009. It is submitted that the employee has been working as a teacher with effect from 18.07.2017 at Pragya Academy Senior Secondary School, Ganganagar City, which fact can be verified from the State portal. 3. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Akola Taluka Education Society & Anr. Vs. Shivaji & Ors.: AIR ONLINE 2007 SC 201 and submitted that, in cases of reinstatement where the employee is gainfully employed elsewhere, he is entitled only to 25% backwages till the date of reinstatement. 4. Heard and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 5. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced herein below: " पकरण मे पककारों के मध यह तथातक ससतत तनतरररातदत है तक पतरर शैतकक संसा एक अअनुदातनत शैतकक संसा है तरा कार शैतकक अपीलारर की सेरा समासप से परर पतररगण संखा 01 र 03 ने ॐ तनदेशक तशका तरभाग राज० सरकार का कोई अनुमोदन / सहमतत पाप লললখ (2023) 18 एस.सी.सी. 581 नातयक तरतनशय के अनुसार अअनुदातनत नहीं की है जो गजानन शमार बनाम आदशर तशका पररषद सतमतत र अन शैतकक संसा के तलए भी लेना अतनरायर रा। पकरण मे अपीलारर तद० 02.07.1986 को पतरर संखा 01 संसा मे 1500/- र0 पततमाह रेतन पर तनयुक हआ, यह तथ भी पककारों मे तनतरररातदत है। संलगक-1 के अनुसार अपीलारर तद० 13.05.2002 को 1500/- रपये मूल रेतन पर तनयुक हआ, तजसने पतररगण कीं शैतकक संसा मे तद० 23.09.1997 को कायरभार गहण तकया रा तरा तजसे तदनांक 23.09.1997 से 13.05.2002 तक उकत संसा मे कायर करने का अनुभर रा। पतररगण ने सीकार तकया है तक अपीलारर तदनांक 23.09.1997 से 30.04.1998 तक 2400/- रपये पततमाह तनतशत रेतन पर असायी रप [2026:RJ-JP:1053] (3 of 4) [CW-20117/2025] से तनयुक हआ तजसकी सेराये आदेश तद० 30.04.1998 से 20.05.1998 तक बढायी गयी तरा आदेश तदनांक 20.05.1998 से 15.05.2000 तक की अरतध के तलए बढायी गयी तरा उसके पशात् तद० 15.05.2002 तक उसकी सेराये बढायी गयी। इस पकार अपीलारर पतररगण की संसा मे 06 माह से अतधक अरतध के तलए तनयुक कमरचारी होकर सामने आता है। तजसने तदनांक 23.09.1997 से उसकी सेरा समासप की तदनांक 01.08.2009 से पूरर तक पतररगण की शैतकक संसा मे तनयतमत रप से शारीररक तशकक के रप मे सेराये दी है। अतः अपीलारर पतररगण संखा 01 र 03 संसा का तनयतमत कमरचारी माना जाता है तजसे पतररगण संखा 01 र 03 मनमाने र तरतध तररद ढंग से अतधतनयम, 1989 की धारा 18 र तनय 1993 के तनयम 39 के पारधानों का उलंघन ' कर तबना तरतधक पतक अपनायी जाकर तरा तबना तनदरशक तशका तरभाग, राज० सरकार के अनुमोदन / सहमतत के सेरा समाप कर सेरा से मुक नहीं कर सकते है। फलसरप अपील अपीलारर तररद पतररगण सीकार करने योग पायी जाती है तरा पतररगण दारा पाररत अपीलारर की सेरा समासप का आदेश संलगक 20 तदनांक 01.08.2009 अपास तकये जाने योग पाया जाता है।" 6. The learned Tribunal has duly considered the Annexures and record produced before it. It has been found that the petitioner (employee) was appointed on 23.09.1997 and continued in service, with extensions granted from time to time. Admittedly, the employee worked until the termination order dated 01.08.2009 was passed. In other words, the employee had admittedly worked for more than six months and could not be categorized as a temporary worker. 7. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gajanand Sharma Vs. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti & Ors. reported in 2023 (18) SCC 581, it can be opined that once the employee is not a temporary employee, the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and the requirement of prior approval from the Director of Education are mandatory sine qua non. In the [2026:RJ-JP:1053] (4 of 4) [CW-20117/2025] absence of such prior approval, the termination order was held to be void ab initio. Further, learned counsel was unable to justify or demonstrate that the engagement of the employee was for less than six months. Although reliance was placed on the Apex Court's judgment regarding gainful employment and limited backwages of 25%, is not thoroughly substantiated in the context of the termination order being void ab initio. Accordingly, the Tribunal's findings on reinstatement and back-wages do not warrant any interference. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds no jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /18