Case Title: MAHESHWARI PUBLICE SCHOOL VS RAN NON GOV EDUCATION TRI ORS
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18478/2011
Decided on: 03/05/2023
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Facts of the case:
Present petition arises out of the impugned judgment dated 10.8.2011 passed by Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No. 01/2005, by which the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) has been allowed and her termination order dated 27.9.2004 has been quashed and the petitioner Institution has been directed to reinstate the respondent back in service with all consequential benefits.
That respondent no.2 was appointed on the post of Primary Teacher in Maths on 4.4.1996 w.e.f. 2.4.1996 by the petitioner Institution and she was removed from service vide order dated 27.9.2004 and six months salary of Rs. 62,394/- was paid to her in lieu of six months notice. (3) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order.
The respondent was in the habit of beating students and she was warned on number of occasions, but her behaviour did not change and her such act affected the reputation of the school, hence the school management took the decision to remove her from service after making payment of six months salary in lieu of the notice.
The respondent submitted an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that she was removed from service in violation of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (for short “Rules of 1993”). It was pleaded before the Tribunal that without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing, she was removed from service with various allegations of beating students of her class. It was pleaded that her removal order was stigmatic and without seeking consent or approval of the Director of Education the impugned order dated 27.9.2004 was passed. It was also pleaded that full salary of six months was not paid to her and the impugned order was passed against the mandatory provisions of law.
Mere sending of intimation/information is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of the above provisions. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in quashing the termination order dated 27.9.2004.
Since this court is of the view that the termination order of the respondent is not passed as per the mandate of above provisions, the court is not deciding the other objections and issues raised by either of the parties.
In view of the discussion made herein above, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay application and all application(s), pending if any, also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by: Mahima Saini