Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging the order of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal, which had directed the reinstatement of terminated employees with consequential benefits. The Court held that the termination orders issued by the school management were in violation of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993. It concluded that no interference was warranted with the Tribunal’s order, thereby upholding the relief granted to the employees.

The writ petitions were filed by school managements against a common judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal had allowed appeals under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (referred to as the “Act of 1989”) and quashed termination orders issued against several employees, directing their reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

Also Read: “Limitation Begins from Date of Pronouncement, Not Copy Receipt”: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal, Says Delay Under IBC Beyond 45 Days Is “Incapable of Condonation”

The petitioners contended that the respondent-employees were appointed purely on contract basis for a fixed tenure, and upon the expiration of that tenure on 06.05.2015, their services were lawfully terminated. They argued that these appointments were not made through any regular selection process as prescribed under the Act of 1989 and the corresponding Rules of 1993. Therefore, the petitioners submitted that the employees could not claim the protection of Section 18 of the Act or Rule 39 of the Rules, which govern dismissal and removal procedures.

The petitioners further contended that the employees were not removed, dismissed, or reduced in rank, but were simply not retained beyond the term of their contracts. Consequently, they argued that the employees’ appeals under Section 19 before the Tribunal were not maintainable and had been erroneously entertained.

In support of these submissions, the petitioners cited multiple precedents including:

1. Shri Jatin Swetambar Terapanthi Manav Hitkari Sangh v. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal

2. Sadhana Godika v. The Managing Committee & Ors.

3. Managing Committee, Shri Bhawani Mahavidyalaya, Sikar v. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal

On the other hand, the respondents maintained that their appointments had followed a selection process and that the classification of their employment as “temporary” was intended only to prevent their regularization. They asserted that their termination was arbitrary and without compliance with the mandatory procedures stipulated under Section 18(iii) of the Act and Rule 39.

The respondents emphasized that no notice, no salary in lieu of notice, and no prior approval from the Director of Education had been obtained before terminating their services. They relied on earlier decisions that held Section 18 applies to both regular and temporary employees, and that its mandatory provisions must be followed in all cases of termination.

The Court considered these rival contentions and proceeded to analyze the legal and factual matrix surrounding the employment, termination, and the Tribunal’s decision.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand recorded that “Section 18 of the Act of 1989 does not make any distinction for its applicability between a person appointed on temporary or permanent basis.” The Court stated that the language of the section makes it applicable to all employees of recognized institutions, and that “it is applicable in respect of all the employees whose services have been dismissed by way of disciplinary action or simple termination.”

The Court further recorded: “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.” It cited the Supreme Court's decision in Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, which had clarified that the requirement of prior approval under Section 18 applies uniformly, regardless of whether the termination is after an enquiry or otherwise.

Referring to Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993, the Court noted: “The provisions are available to all employees, whether he/she is appointed on regular or temporary basis.” It recorded that even temporary employees must be given one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof, and that Rule 39(2) further provides procedures for the removal or dismissal of all employees other than those covered under sub-rule (1).

The Court stated: “The whole purpose behind enactment of the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 and the provisions made therein i.e. Section 18 and Rule 39 is to check arbitrary action on the part of the unscrupulous management of the educational institutions.”

In response to the argument that no regular selection process was followed, the Court recorded: “This Court finds no merit in the pleadings and arguments presented by the respondents-employees claiming that they were appointed after following the selection process, as no supporting documents have been produced by them.” However, it also held that the lack of regular appointment does not deprive employees of the protection offered under Section 18.

On the maintainability of the appeal under Section 19, the Court stated: “It is clear that appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 is maintainable in similar matters of termination from service, of temporary employees.”

In addressing the broader principle, the Court observed: “No person can be left remediless.” It invoked the Latin maxim ubi jus ibi remedium and recorded: “The principle underscores that no wrong should go without a remedy.”

The Court concluded as follows: “In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit and substance in these writ petitions, accordingly, the same are liable to be and are hereby rejected.”

Also Read: Rule of Law Is a Constitutional Pillar ; Allowing State to Breach Contracts Would Make It Ineffective: P&H High Court Quashes Chandigarh Administration’s Cancellation of Auctioned Land Deal

The Court confirmed the Tribunal’s finding that the terminations were arbitrary and unlawful:

“The respondent-employees were neither given six months’ notice nor salary in lieu thereof and without following the mandate contained under Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989, the services were terminated.”

The judgment further recorded: “The same was found to be illegal by the Tribunal by passing a reasoned and speaking order which requires no interference of this Court.”

In closing, the Court clarified the petitioner’s liberty for future action: “The petitioner would be at liberty to proceed against the respondent after following the due process of law as contained under the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993.”

All pending applications were also dismissed and there was no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Naina Saraf, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Rathore, Ms. Anjum Praveen Salawat for Ms. Namita Parihar, Deputy Government Counsel, and Mr. Ramesh Acharya

Case Title: Managing Committee, Virjanand Senior Secondary School v. Saurabh Upadhayaya & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:14355

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3668/2017 (with connected matters)

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

[Read/Download order]