Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 – s.18 – For termination from service, the approval of Director of Education required or not – Appellant-employee was terminated after a departmental enquiry – Tribunal set aside the order of termination by observing and holding that the prior approval of the Director of Education as mandatory u/s. 18 of the Act, 1989 was not obtained – Single Judge confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal – Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal and has set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the Single Judge and has upheld the order of termination – Division Bench observed that in case of a termination after the disciplinary enquiry/proceedings prior approval of the Director of Education is not required – On appeal, held: On true interpretation of Section
18 of the Act, 1989, it is specifically observed and held that even in case of termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution after holding departmental enquiry/proceedings prior approval of the Director of Education has to be obtained as per first proviso to s.18 of the Act, 1989 – The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court restoring the order of termination which as such was without obtaining the prior approval of the Director of Education is set aside – The order of Tribunal setting aside the order of termination confirmed by the Single Judge of the High Court is restored.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The decision of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar was binding upon the High Court. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has seriously erred in not following the decision of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar. [Para 5.1][957B]
2. Even on fair reading of Section 18 of the Act, 1989, this Court is of the opinion that in case of termination of an employee of a recognized institution prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has to be obtained. In Section 18, there is no distinction between the termination, removal, or reduction in rank after the disciplinary proceedings/enquiry or even without disciplinary proceedings/enquiry. As per the settled position of law the provisions of the statute are to be read as they are. Nothing to be added and or taken away. The words used are “no employee of a recognized institution shall be removed without holding any enquiry and it further provides that no final order in this regard shall be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education has been obtained.” The first part of Section 18 is to be read along with first proviso. Under the circumstances, taking a contrary view that in case of dismissal/removal of an employee of a recognized institution which is after holding the departmental enquiry the prior approval of the Director of Education is not required is unsustainable and to that extent the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Central Academy Society is not a good law. [Para 5.5][959-B-E]
3. Therefore, on true interpretation of Section 18 of the Act, 1989, it is specifically observed and held that even in case of termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution after holding departmental enquiry/proceedings prior approval of the Director of Education has to be obtained as per first proviso to Section 18 of the Act, 1989. [Para 5.6][959-E-F]
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court restoring the order of termination which as such was without obtaining the prior approval of the Director of Education deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The order of Tribunal setting aside the order of termination confirmed by the Single Judge is hereby restored. Consequently, the appellant shall have to be reinstated in service and considering the fact that the respondent(s) is/are un-aided institution and the order of termination was passed as far as back in the year 1998, this & ORS.
Court directs that the appellant shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages, however, he shall be entitled to all other benefits notionally including the seniority etc., if any. [Para 6][959-F-H; 960-A]
Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education and Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 541 : [2016] 1 SCR 697 – relied on.
Central Academy Society vs. Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutional Tribunal (2010) 3 WLC 21 – held not good law.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Supp. SCR 587; Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs. Asha srivastava (2020) 14 SCC 449 : [2019] 2 SCR 722; Mangal Sain Jain vs. Principal Balvantray Mehta Vidya Bhawan & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 3415/2020 decided by the Delhi High Court] –
referred to.
Mangal Sain Jain v. Principal Balvantray Mehta Vidya Bhawan & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 3415/2020 decided by the Delhi High Court] – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.