Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lal Bahadur Shastri Edu. Soci.Jodhpur vs Raj. Non- Govt. Edu. Insti. Tri.& Ors on 6 January, 2011
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Educational Society,
Jodhpur
Versus
Rajasthan Non-Government Educational
Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & Others
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3959/1996)
DATE OF ORDER : January 06, 2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
_________________________________________
Mr. M.S. Singhvi for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Malik for the respondent(s).
BY THE COURT :
In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Institution is challenging the validity of judgment dated 18.09.1995 (Annex.-15) and order dated 02.09.1996 (Annex.-8) passed upon application filed under Order 9 Rule 13, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The case of the petitioner institution is that an appeal was preferred by respondent No.4 employee of the petitioner institution against his termination order before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur. The 2 said appeal was allowed by the Tribunal filed by respondent employee solely on the ground that before terminating the services of the respondent-employee. who was working on the post of Teacher, compliance of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 was not made. Said Judge dated 18.09.1999 was passed ex parte because, inspite of service, none appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner institution. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 13, read with Section 151, C.P.C. was filed. Said application was also rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the adjudication made by the Tribunal earlier is in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1989 because Section 18, whereby, approval of the Director, Education Department for terminating the services of the respondent employee was required to be obtained. Admittedly, as per record of the case, after completion of the enquiry against respondent No.4, no approval was obtained from the Director as required under Section 18 of the Act of 1989; and, now, the controversy has come to rest after the judgment of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, reported in 2006 (3) WLC (Raj.) 504, Managing Committee through Chairman (Brid.) Dy. G.O.C., Army School & Another Vs. Smt. Pushpa Sharma & 4 Others, in which, the Division Bench has held that before terminating the services of an employee of the Non-Government 3 Education Institution, it is mandatory for the Institution to obtain approval of the Director as provided under Section 18 of the Act. In my opinion, the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the said judgment, therefore, no interference is required.
However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned judgment while setting aside the termination order dated 03.05.1994, the Tribunal has granted opportunity to the petitioner institution to take action in accordance with Section 18 and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of 1993. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that in the event of taking any action in accordance with the liberty granted by the Tribunal the petitioner institution may be granted opportunity to place the respondent-employee under suspension and to proceed further. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards judgments reported in JT 1996 (5) SC 403, State of Punjab & Others Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, (1981) 4 SCC 563, Divisional Personnel Officer, Wester Railway, Kota Vs. Sunder Dass; and, AIR 1981 SC 1400, Rafiq & Another Vs. Munshilal & Another.
While citing the above judgments, it is submitted that first of all, the appeal which was filed by the employee was allowed by the Tribunal due to default of the petitioner's counsel who did not appear, therefore, ex parte judgment was delivered and as 4 such in the event of taking action now against the respondent- employee the opportunity to place him under suspension may also be granted.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that when the controversy is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Committee through Chairman (Brid.) Dy. G.O.C., Army School & Another Vs. Smt. Pushpa Sharma & 4 Others (supra), then, no further direction is required while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is submitted that when liberty has been granted by the Tribunal to take action in accordance with Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39(2) of the Rules of 1993, then, no further directions are required in this matter, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for granting liberty to treat the petitioner under suspension is totally untenable.
I have considered rival submissions made by both the parties.
It is obvious from the facts that as per judgment of the Division Bench mentioned above it was mandatory for the petitioner Institution to obtain permission of the Director before terminating the services of the petitioner; but, it has not been done, therefore, in my opinion, impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference. Further, it is 5 one of the important facts of the case that in the year 1994 the services of the respondent employee were terminated and said judgment has been challenged in this writ petition and stay order is operating in this case against the respondent employee for last fourteen years. Therefore, in the year 2010 when this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter after the judgment of the Division Bench, then, it is not proper to pass any order to treat the respondent employee under suspension because in the evening of life, now, it is not proper to again put the respondent employee to hardship and mental agony. At this stage, when this Court is dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner institution in the light of the Division Bench judgment, then, it is not proper to pass any direction as prayed for by the petitioner institution for treating the respondent employee under suspension. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this case in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.