“‘Closure of Hostel Mess Does Not Amount to Abolition of Post’: Rajasthan High Court Directs Reinstatement of Terminated School Employees for Breach of Section 18 Procedure”
Safiya Malik
The Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court held that the termination of employees in a recognised educational institution without complying with the procedure under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rule 39 of the 1993 Rules is illegal. The Court recorded that the petitioners failed to obtain prior approval from the Director of Education before issuing termination orders and further observed that the claim of post abolition was unsupported by documentary evidence. It directed reinstatement of the respondents with continuity in service and consequential benefits, but denied payment of 50% back wages granted by the Tribunal.
The batch of petitions arose out of multiple orders passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, quashing the termination of various Class-IV employees of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Vidyashram and directing their reinstatement with 50% back wages and consequential benefits. The orders under challenge were passed in response to termination letters dated 8 March 2021 issued during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioners—Management Committee and President of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Jaipur Centre—argued that the respondents were appointed specifically for the hostel mess facility, which had been shut down due to the pandemic. Citing administrative resolutions and closure orders from September 2020, the petitioners submitted that the hostel and mess operations were discontinued and staff relieved accordingly. It was contended that since the posts were abolished and the employees were not dismissed for misconduct, the requirements of Section 18 of the 1989 Act and Rule 39 of the 1993 Rules were inapplicable.
In support, the petitioners cited the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in S.S. Jain Subodh Shiksha Samiti v. Seema Daya & Ors., which had interpreted the applicability of Section 18 in the context of unaided institutions and post-abolition decisions.
The respondents, represented by individual employees terminated from service, opposed the writ petitions. It was submitted that the termination orders were passed as a retaliatory measure after the employees challenged the 25% salary reduction imposed during the pandemic. They argued that their appointments were in the school and not exclusively linked to the hostel mess. Citing their earlier regularisation by order dated 25 August 1999, it was contended that the employment was not post-specific and no valid procedure under Section 18 or Rule 39 was followed before termination.
The respondents relied upon decisions including Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samiti, Army Public School v. Arvind Bhandari, and Raj Kumar v. Director of Education, asserting that approval from the Director was a mandatory precondition for valid termination under the statute.
The State, represented by the Director of Secondary Education, did not contest the petitions, stating that no specific relief had been sought against the Department.
The Court began its analysis by noting that the Tribunal had quashed the termination orders on the ground of non-compliance with Section 18 of the 1989 Act and Rule 39 of the 1993 Rules. It reproduced the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Section 18(iii) which requires that, where the management committee is unanimously of the view that the employee’s service cannot be continued, six months’ notice or salary in lieu thereof and prior approval of the Director are mandatory.
The Court observed: “Perusal of Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39(2)(h)(iii) of the Rules of 1993 clearly indicates that before removal of an employee, the managing committee is supposed to give six months notice or salary in lieu thereof to the employee and the consent of the Director of Education is required to be obtained in writing.”
The petitioners’ argument that the posts were abolished due to closure of the hostel mess was rejected on factual grounds. The Court noted: “Perusal of the aforesaid proceedings of the petitioner-management nowhere indicates that the post held by the respondent No.1 was abolished.”
It further recorded: “A decision of closure of hostel mess by the petitioner-management does not amount to abolition of the post held by the respondent No.1.”
Referring to the appointment records, the Court found that the respondents were regularised on the post of Class-IV employees in the school and not appointed specifically to the mess. It held that the order relieving the respondents amounted to termination and was governed by Section 18 and Rule 39.
On the legal issue of whether prior approval of the Director was required, the Court extensively examined conflicting judicial opinions. It acknowledged the Division Bench view in Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samiti which held such approval unnecessary in unaided institutions but noted that this had been overruled by the Supreme Court in Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samiti, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 54.
The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s holding: “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.”
The Court concluded that the legal position was now settled and mandatory compliance with Section 18 was required even for unaided institutions.
It further observed: “In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we see no reason to take a different view as the controversy involved in this appeal has already been put to rest by the Constitutional Bench of 11 Judges of the Hon’ble Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and the three Judges Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Central Academy Society, that prior approval of the Director of Education is necessary.”
On the question of back wages, the Court referred to C.N. Malla v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Mulin Sharma v. State of Assam, where it was held that back wages are not automatic and depend on the factual matrix. The Court noted the absence of evidence that the respondents remained unemployed and applied the principle of “no work no pay”.
It recorded: “Though it is the case of the respondents-employees that they joined their services in petitioner-school, but they were not allowed to work... they have not produced any material on the record that they remained unemployed during the period of their termination from service.”
Having considered the factual and legal issues, the Court concluded that the termination was in violation of mandatory statutory provisions and liable to be set aside. However, it modified the Tribunal’s direction to restrict monetary relief.
The Court held: “The petitioner-management is directed to reinstate the respondents in service on the post held by them, at the time of their termination, with continuity in service and all other consequential benefits excluding payment of 50% back-wages.”
It further ordered: “The respondents would be entitled to get actual monetary benefits with effect from the date of their joining in services.”
The impugned orders of the Tribunal were modified to the extent that the direction regarding 50% back wages was set aside, while all other directions were upheld.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Gauri Jasana for Mr. Prateek Kasliwal
For the Respondents: Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rahul Gupta; Mr. Prahlad Singh
Case Title: Management Committee, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan & Anr. v. Rameshwar Lal Meena & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19097/2023, 19098/2023, 19099/2023, 19100/2023, 19103/2023, 19104/2023, 19105/2023, 19106/2023, 19107/2023
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
[Read/Download order]
