Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Managing Committee D.A.V. Uchh … vs Sh Shivraj And Anr on 8 April, 2025
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
[2025:RJ-JP:14355]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3668/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Saurabh Upadhayaya S/o Sh. Ramesh Chandar
Upadhyaya, aged about 30 years, R/o H.No. 36/43 Near
Railway Crossing, Dholabhara, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner Rajasthan
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3669/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V.
College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional
Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Hemlata Khorwal W/o Sh. Prem Chand Khorwal, ,
aged 36 years, Watd No. 7 Purani Chandmari, Nr. Pan
Thadi, Paharganj, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3670/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V.
College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional
Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (2 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Pratibha Shekhawat W/o Monu Sharma, age 26
years, R/o 13/47 Ghans Katla Naya Bazar, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3671/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Renu Panwar W/o Sh. Mahender Singh, age about
55 years, H.no. 24 G 686 Subhash Nagar, Bewar Road,
Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3672/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Shivraj S/o Sh. Laxman Das, aged 39 years, H.no.
445/12, Subhash Nagar, Khanpura Road, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3676/2017
Managing Committee, Dayanand Bal Niketan Senior Secondary
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (3 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
School, Ramganj, Ajmer (Raj.) through Regional Director,
D.A.V. College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi,
Regional Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dheeraj Kumar S/o Shri Jai Gopal, aged about 24 years,
R/o House No. 548 C, Front Neharu Gate, Govind Nagar,
Ramganj, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3677/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Shiv Prasad S/o Sh. Pandit Mangilal Gour, aged about
47 years, R/o Subhash Nagar, Gali No. 5 Ward No. 24,
Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3678/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ms. Ranjeeta Dhawan D/o Late Shri Prem Chand Dhawan,
aged 35 years, H.no. A/60 Gali No. 7, Prem Nagar,
Phaisagar Road, Ajmer Raj.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (4 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3679/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V.
College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional
Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Ratnesh Sharma W/o Sh. Sanjiv Sharma, aged
about 46 years, R/o 345-26, A Union Bank Ke Pass, Sabji
Mandi, Ramgang, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3680/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ms. Yashodha Sharma D/o Sh. Anupander Nath Sharma,
aged 27 years, H.no. 6/38 Gali No. 1, Nr. Ladu Ji Kui,
Ashok Nagar, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7591/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (5 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Tara Singh S/o Sh. Anda Singh, age 39 years, R/o
Gaon Chahat Post Rajgar, Via Saradhna, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7592/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Mahender Kumar S/o. Sh. Shivcharan, aged about 35
years, R/o Mukam Post Tabiji Via Saradhna, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7593/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Nisha W/o Sh. Ashok, aged about 37 years, R/o
Near Shiv Mandir, Rawan Ki Bagichi, Kesharganj, Ajmer
Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7594/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (6 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V.
College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional
Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Sanjay Singh S/o Sh. Late Kamal Singh, age 42
years, R/o H.No. 873/25, Pharganj Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7595/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Jyoti Sharma D/o Sh. Devdutt Sharma, aged about
32 years, R/o Kalimata Ke Mandir Ke Pass, Govind Nagar,
Ramganj Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7596/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Jyoti Sharma W/o Sh. Vinod Ubana, aged 37 years,
H.no. 64/24E Opp. Govt. School, Subhash Nagar, Ajmer
Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (7 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7597/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Narveer Gupta S/o Sh. Baburam Gupta, aged 28
years, R/o H.no. 583/27, Vivek Churi Wali Gali, Gachawa
Bhawan Ke Pass, Ramganj, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7598/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sanjay Sharma S/o Sh. Atma Ram Sharma, aged about
41 years, R/o Gali No. 3 Shakti Nagar, Aam Ka Talab,
Madar, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7599/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Shailender Panwar S/o Sh. Suresh Panwar, aged
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (8 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
about 29 years, Resident of H.no. 346/34 Nr. Ramdev Ji
Mandir, Pal Bichla, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7732/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Homender Singh S/o Sh. Nandu Sigh Shekhawat,
aged about 28 years, Resident of 44, Revenue Colony,
Kayad Road, Ghughra, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14614/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Sandeep Tripathi D/o Sh. Ram Prakash Tripathi, aged
about 29 years, Resident of Jyoti Nagar, Badabagru, Top
Dada, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14615/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (9 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Shyam Sunder Singh Rao S/o Sh. Prahlad Singh Roa,
aged about 37 years, Resident of H.no. 17/27 Imli Wali
Galim Johns Gang, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14647/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Manish Sharma S/o Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, aged 28
years, R/o H.no. 500/26, Mandir Wali Gali Ramganj,
Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14648/2017
Managing Committee, Dayanand Bal Niketan Senior Secondary
School, Ramganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V.
College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional
Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Ambika Kapoor W/o Shri Ajay Kapoor, aged about
49 years, Resident of Gali No. 22, Kapil Nagar, Tower
Road, Subhash Nagar, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (10 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14649/2017
Managing Committee, Virjanand Senior Secondary School, Girls
Wing Ist. Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director,
D.A.V. College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi,
Regional Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Preeti Gupta W/o Shri Vivek Gupta, aged about 34
years, Resident of 505/26, Pathar Wali Galiramganj,
Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14650/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V.uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Sharma,
age 31 years, R/o H.No. 670/21, Angira Nagar, Gate
Godam Wali Gali, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14651/2017
Managing Committee, Dayanand Bal Niketan Senior Secondary
School, Ramganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V.
College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional
Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kamal Kishor S/o Shri Tej Pal Rathi, aged about 26 years,
Resident of Sankhala Ki Chhaki Ke Pass, Avadhipuri,
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (11 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
Jhonsganj, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14652/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V.uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Nisha Nelsan D/o Sh. Jitendra Sairil Nelsan, aged about
27 years, Resident of House No. 701/1, Marg No. 13,
Crichanganj, Anand Nagar, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14653/2017
Managing Committee, Virjanand Senior Secondary School, Girls
Wing Ist. Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director,
D.A.V. College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi,
Regional Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Sunita Sharma W/o Shri Dayanand Chaturvedi, aged
about 44 years, Resident of through Shri H.K. Rohataji,
1312/32, Arya Nagar, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14654/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V.Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (12 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Anokha Jain W/o Sh. Deepak Jain, aged about 37
years, Resident of Near Jain Mandir, Koikil Kunj Pal,
Bichala, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16980/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Niranjan Bagri S/o Sh. Amar Chand Bagri, age 34 years,
R/o 703/43, Behind Meao College, Gahalot Ki Dugri,
Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16991/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V.Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Mahender Singh Bundel S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Bundel,
aged about 40, Resident of H.no. 14/12/13 Soni Sadan,
Bhagwan Ganj Rosimil Road, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16993/2017
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (13 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
Managing Committee, Dayanand Bal Niketan Senior Secondary
School, Ramganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V.
College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional
Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Reena Sen W/o Shri Kunal Bhati, aged about 29 years,
Resident of Kesharganj, Sabji Mandi, Subhash Chowak,
Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16994/2017
Managing Committee, Dayanand Bal Niketan Senior Secondary
School, Ramganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V.
College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional
Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Archana Mishra W/o Shri Rakesh Sharma, Resident
of Behind Gaur Provisional Stor, Subhash Nagar, Ajmer
Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16995/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Vandana Bharadwaj W/o Sh. Diwakar Bharadwaj,
aged 43 years, R/o Gali No. 2, Govind Nagar, Ramganj,
Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (14 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16996/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Rekha Joshi W/o Sh. Amit Joshi, aged about 35
years, Resident of Gali No. 2, Chitarkoot Colony, Handi
Restorant Ke Pass Wali Gali, Makkarwali Road, Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commisioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16997/2017
Managing Committee, Dayanand Bal Niketan Senior Secondary
School, Ramganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V.
College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional
Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Barkha Lawas D/o Shri Chunni Lal Lawas, aged about 28
years, Resident of 92 C, Hariom Marg, BhajanGanj, Ajmer
Raj.
2. Director/Commisioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17175/2017
Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya,
Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director, D.A.V. College
Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi, Regional Office,
D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (15 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
1. Monu Sharma S/o Sh. Satyanarain Sharma, aged about
30 years, Resident of 13-47, Ghas Katala, Naya Bazar,
Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17182/2017
Managing Committee, Virjanand Senior Secondary School, Girls
Wing Ist. Kesarganj, Ajmer Raj. through Regional Director,
D.A.V. College Managing Committee, Pahaganj, New Delhi,
Regional Office, D.A.V. Shatabdi Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Shikha Verma W/o Shri Tarun Verma, aged about 34
years, Resident of Plot No. 6, Naya Ghar, Gulabbadi,
Ajmer Raj.
2. Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. With
Mr. Ankit Rathore
Ms. Anjum Praveen Salawat for
Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.GC
Mr. Ramesh Acharya, through VC
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
Reserved on : 28/03/2025
Pronounced on : 08/04/2025
Reportable
INDEX
(1) Prelude........................................................................16
(2)Submissions by counsel for petitioner.........................17
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (16 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
(3) Submissions by counsel for respondents.....................18
(4)Discussions & Analysis..................................................20
(5) Judgments referred......................................................27
(6) Conclusion & Directions............................................... 34
Prelude:
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in
these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the
parties, arguments have been heard together and the instant writ
petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These writ petitions have been preferred against the
common judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Rajasthan
Non-Government Educational Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred
as 'the Tribunal') by which the appeals preferred by the
respondents under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government
Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short 'Act of 1989') have
been allowed and their termination orders have been quashed and
set aside with direction for their reinstatement in service with all
consequential benefits.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts and prayer pleaded in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3668/2017 is taken into consideration.
The instant writ petition has been submitted with the following
prayer:
"a) By appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ
petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated
14.09.2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(b) Any other appropriate order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deems expedient in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioners."
4. By way of filing the instant writ petitions, a challenge has
been led to the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal on a
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (17 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
technical point that provisions of Sections 18 of the Act of 1989 &
Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions
Rule, 1993 (for short 'Rules of 1993') are not applicable in the
case of employees who are appointed purely on contract basis.
Submissions by counsel for petitioner:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the
respondent-employees were appointed for a fixed term in their
service tenure, purely on contract basis and at the end of their
term, their services were terminated with effect from 06.05.2015.
Counsel submits that these employees were not selected or
appointed through regular selection process, as contained under
the Act of 1989 and the provisions contained under the Rules of
1993. Counsel submits that under Section 18 of the Act of 1989
details regarding the provision of removal, dismissal or reduction
in rank of employees are mentioned but in the instant case, the
employees were neither removed or dismissed nor their rank was
reduced, hence, under these circumstances, they were not entitled
to file applications under Section 21 before the Tribunal. In fact,
such applications, submitted by them, were not maintainable but
the same were erroneously admitted by the Tribunal, in
consequence of which the order impugned has been passed,
hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is
warranted.
6. In support of her contentions counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (18 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
1) Shri Jatin Swetambar Terapanthi Manav Hitkari Sangh &
Ors. vs. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational
Institutions Tribunal & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3610/2003
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2014
3) Managing Committee, Shri Bhawani Mahavidyalaya, Sikar
& Anr. vs. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational
Institution Tribunal, Jaipur; S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.8704/2009
4) Ramavtar Sharma vs. Rajasthan Non-Government
Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors.; S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.4868/1998
5.) Dr. Sadhana Godika vs. Managing Committee, Agarwal
Shikshak Parshikshan Mahavidhyalaya, Jaipur through
General Secretary/Secretary & Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal
Writ No.878/2016 decided on 25.10.2017
6.) Principal & Ors. vs. Presiding Officer & & Ors. reported
in 1978 AIR 344.
7. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made
hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set
aside.
Submissions by counsel for respondents:
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (19 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
the respondents were appointed, after going through the selection
process in accordance with law, but the petitioner-management
has shown their appointment as temporary, with a view to
maintain facets of exploitation and to keep the employees on
temporary basis in order to restrain them from becoming
permanent. Counsel submits that without following the provisions
contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the services of all
the employees were terminated. Counsel submits that such an
action on the part of the petitioner-management is in
contravention of the provisions contained under the Act of 1989,
hence, under these circumstances, the employees were having no
other alternative except to file an application under Section 21 of
the Act of 1989 before the Tribunal. Counsel submits that the word
“employee” has been defined under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1989
which includes a teacher or every other employee working in a
recognized institution. The definition is not concerned with
whether he/she was appointed on a sanctioned post on temporary
or contract basis. Counsel submits that the issue raised in the
instant writ petitions is no more res integra, as the same has been
decided by the Co-ordinate Single Bench and Division Benches of
this Court in catena of judgments.
9. In support of his contentions counsel has placed reliance
upon the following judgments:
1) Honorary Secretary, Maheshwari Balika Vidyalaya, Jaipur
vs. Ravindra Pareek & Anr. reported in 1996 (3) WLC 102
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (20 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
2) Yogendra Kumar Mishra vs. Rajasthan Non-Government
Educational Institution Tribunal; S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2453/2001
3) Bhopalwala Arya Higher Secondary School vs. Mr. Nand
Lal Saraswat & Ors.; D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.860/2008
4) Sri Sanatan Dharm Shastri Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No.522/2013.
10. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made
hereinabove, the writ petitions submitted by the petitioner-
management are liable to be rejected and the order passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be upheld.
Discussions & Analysis:
11. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and
perused the material available on the record.
12. The legal issue involved in these writ petitions is that
“whether services of any contractual or fixed term employee can
be terminated without following the provisions contained under
Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989? and Whether appeal filed
against such termination order is maintainable under Section 19 of
the Act of 1989?”
13. Before entering into the merits of these writ petitions, this
Court thought it proper to address the other issue that is “whether
a person be left remediless if the statute does not provide for an
appeal? and whether an aggrieved person can be allowed to
remain silent, if any adverse order is passed against him?”
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (21 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
14. Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy. Where there
is a legal right, there is a remedy. The law is settled that in every
case where a man is wronged and endamaged he must have a
remedy. The principle of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium is recognised as
a fundamental principle of the theory of law and philosophy. It is
the Court’s responsibility to protect and preserve the right of
parties and to support them, rather than refusing the relief.
15. The Latin maxim ubi jus ibi remedium means that “where
there is a right, there is a remedy”.
The principle underscores that no wrong should go without a
remedy. This maxim should be applied to establish a principle that
safeguards the fundamental rights of citizens who may suffer due
to legal proceedings. According to this maxim, whenever common
law recognizes a right or prohibits an injury, it also provides a
remedy. In other words, any constitutional or statutory right
possessed by a citizen must be protected by the courts.
16. In the leading case of Ashby Vs. White reported in
(1703) 92 ER 126, (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938, (1703) 1 Sm LC
(13th Edn) 253 decided on 01.01.1703, the Court of Kings
Bench in United Kingdom observed that when law cloths a man
with a right he must have means to vindicate and maintain it and
remedy it if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it and it
is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy for want of
right and want of remedy a reciprocal.
17. Referring to the rule of “ubi jus ibi remedium”, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed in the case of M/s. Shiv Shanker Dal
Mills and Others Vs. State of Harayana reported in 1980(2)
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (22 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
SCC 437 that if legal injury is caused to any person, then
aggrieved person has at least one remedy of appeal to challenge
the correctness of the order impugned passed against him.
18. Similarly, the maxim Lex Semper Dabit Remedium
translates to “the law always provides a remedy.” It reflects the
idea that it is futile to conceive of a right without a remedy, as the
existence of a right inherently implies the existence of a means to
protect and enforce it. Thus, if a person holds a right, they must
have the means to assert and defend it, along with a remedy if
that right is violated.
19. In the case of Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra reported in
(2004) 2 SCC 150, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion
to examine the broad principles of judicial review wherein it has
been observed that judicial review is a highly complex and
developing subject and it is considered to be the basic feature of
the Constitution. The Court in exercise of its power of judicial
review would zealously guard the human rights, fundamental
rights and the citizen’s right of life and liberty.
20. The Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the
case of Ravinder Chatra Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
Ors., reported in 2018 SCC Online HP 1450 has observed that
the right to appeal is a creation of statute but in absence of such
provision, the aggrieved person cannot be left remediless and it
has been held in para 5 as under:-
“5. There is another reason which prompts us to enable
the petitioner to file the appeal. The Himachal Pradesh
Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 2000 does not
provide any remedy of appeal etc. Though, the right to
appeal is a creation of Statute, but, it appears to us that
the petitioner cannot be left remediless on the question of(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (23 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]determination of the actual loan amount payable by the
borrower or the petitioner. We thus, direct Registrar
Cooperative Societies to entertain the arbitration
application/petition, as may be preferred by the petitioner
under Sections 72 (d) & (e) and 73 of the 1968 Act, and
adjudicated the same in accordance with law and
principles of natural justice within a period of four months
from the date of filing of such petition. The petitioner
shall be at liberty to seek interim relief before the
authority referred to above.”
21. Hence, it is clear that every aggrieved person has the
remedy against the adverse order passed against him and no
person can be left remediless. Now this Court proceeds further to
examine the matter on its merits.
22. As per the petitioner, the respondents-employees were given
a fixed- term contract and after completion of the same, the term
came to an end. While as per the respondents, they were granted
appointment after following the selection process, but their
appointment was treated as “temporary” with a view to restrain
them from becoming permanent.
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. There was neither any
advertisement nor any approval of the State Government
regarding their appointment. Therefore, it is not possible to
assume that their appointment was made after following the
regular selection process. In fact, their appointment was made on
temporary basis, for a fixed term and on completion of the same,
their services were to be terminated, without following the
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (24 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
mandate, contained under Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989. For
ready reference, Section 18 is reproduced as under:
“Section 18 of the Act of 1989.
Removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees –
Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, no
employee of a recognised institution shall be removed,
dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given
by the management a reasonable opportunity of being
heard against the action proposed to be taken:
Provided that no final order in this regard shall be
passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education
or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has been
obtained:
(i) xxxxxxxxxxxx
(ii) xxxxxxxxxxxx
(iii) Where the managing committee is of unanimous
opinion that the services of an employee can not be
continued without prejudice to the interest of the
institution, the services of such employee are
terminated after giving him six months notice or salary
in lieu thereof and the consent of the Director of
Education is obtained in writing.”
23. 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 bare perusal of the language of the Section
18 of the Act of 1989 indicates that it is applicable on all the
employees of the recognized institution.
24. Similarly, Rule 39 of the Rules, 1993 also deals with the
provisions and procedure of removal or dismissal from service.
The same is extracted as under:
“Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993.
Removal or Dismissal from Service-
(1)The services of an employee appointed temporarily
for six months, may be terminated by the management
at any time after giving at least one month’s notice or
one month’s salary in lieu thereof. Temporary employee,
who wishes to resign shall also give atleast one month’s(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (25 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]notice in advance or in lieu thereof deposit or surrender
one month’s salary to the management.
(2) An employee, other than the employee referred to in
sub-rule (1), may be removed or dismissed from service
on the grounds of insubordination, inefficiency,
neglect of duty, misconduct or any other grounds which
makes the employee unsuitable for further retention in
service. But the following procedure shall be adopted
for the removal or dismissal of an employee:-
(a) to (g)xxxxxxxxx
(h) On receipt of the approval as mentioned in sub-
clause (g) above, the managing committee may issue
appropriate order of removal or dismissal as the case
may be and forward a copy of such order to the
employee concerned and also to the Director of
Education or the officer authorised by him in this
behalf:
Provided that the provisions of this rule shall not
apply:-
(I) xxxxxxxxxxxx
(ii) xxxxxxxxxxxx
(iii) Where the managing committee is of unanimous
opinion that, the services of an employee cannot be
continued without prejudice to the interest of the
institution, the service of such employee are terminated
after giving him six months notice or salary in lieu
thereof and the consent of the Director of Education is
obtained in writing..”
25. A combined reading of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and
Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 makes it explicitly clear that in the
case of temporary employee, appointed for six months, his
services can be terminated by the Management at any point of
time, after giving six month’s notice or six month’s salary in lieu
thereof. The first proviso attach to Section 18 of the Act of 1989
requires that approval of the Director of Education is required to
be obtained in the matters of removal or dismissal of the
employee.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (26 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
26. The word ’employee’ has been defined under Section 2(i) of
the Act of 1989 and the same includes a teacher and every other
employee in a recognized institution. There is no distinction
between a person appointed on regular basis or temporary basis.
27. In case of regular appointments, the recruitment process is
required to be conducted, the vacancies are required to be
advertised and the appointments are to be given after getting
approval from the State Government. Also, the consent of the
representatives of the Department of Education is required. But in
case of temporary or contractual appointments, no such procedure
is required to be followed. The service of such temporary
employees cannot be terminated by passing a single line order,
without providing any reasons and the process contained under
Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989 is only required to be followed.
The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act,
1989 (Act No. 19 of 1992) is a social legislation to provide for
better organisation and development of education in the non-
government educational institutions in the State of Rajasthan. It is
also intended to check various malpractices and mischief’s which
were being committed by some unscrupulous Managements of
non- government educational institutions, qua their teachers and
employees. The Teachers and other employees of such institutions
have been victims of arbitrary hiring and firing policy of the
management as they used to adopt the policy of ad-hocism. Such
Managements followed the policy of ad-hocism in appointing
teachers who constituted the bulk of the educated un-employed
persons. The teachers and other employees were compelled to
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (27 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
accept these jobs on ad-hoc basis with miserable conditions of
service as they had no option. The various provisions contained in
the Act now provide sufficient safeguards against such arbitrary
action of the Management. Chapter-VI of the Act under the head
“Conditions of Service and Tribunal” contains regulatory provisions
relating to the terms and conditions of employment of aided
institutions in the State. Section-16 empowers the state
Government to regulate the terms and conditions of employment.
28. The term ’employee,’ as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act
of 1989, refers to any individual, employed, either on regular or
temporary basis. Hence, the procedure contained under Section
18(iii) of the Act is required, to be followed in the case of
termination of services of a temporary employee.
Judgments referred:
29. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Division Benches and
Co-ordinate Single Benches of this Court have categorically dealt
with this issue in a number of judgments. Few of them are
discussed hereinunder:
29.1. In the case of Management Committee of Montfort
Senior Secondary School Vs. Shri Vijay Kumar and Ors (Civil
Appeal Nos. 5143 and 6593 of 2003), decided on
12.09.2005, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 7 has observed as
under:-
“In St. Xaviers’ case (supra) the following observation was
made, which was noted in Frank Anthony’s case (supra):
“A regulation which is designed to prevent
maladministration of an educational institution
cannot be said to offend clause (1) of Article 30. At
the same time it has to be ensured that under the(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (28 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]power of making regulation nothing is done as
would detract from the character of the institution
as a minority educational institution or which would
impinge upon the rights of the minorities to
establish and administer educational institutions of
their choice. The right conferred by Article 30(1) is
intended to be real and effective and not a mere
pious and abstract sentiment; it is a promise of
reality and not a teasing illusion. Such a right
cannot be allowed to be whittled down by any
measure masquerading as a regulation. As
observed by this Court in the case of Rev.
Sidhajbjai Sabhai (supra), regulations which may
lawfully be imposed either by legislative or
executive action as a condition of receiving grant or
of recognition must be directed to making the
institution while retaining its character as minority
institution as an educational institution. Such
regulation must satisfy a dual test J the test of
reasonableness, and the test that it is regulative of
the educational character of the institution and is
conclusive to making the institution an effective
vehicle of education for the minority or other
persons who resort to it.
The effect of the decision in Frank Anthony’s case (supra)
is that the statutory rights and privileges of Chapter IV
have been extended to the employees covered by Chapter
V and, therefore, the contractual rights have to be judged
in the background of statutory rights. In view of what has
been stated in Frank Anthony’s case (supra) the very
nature of employment has undergone a transformation
and services of the employees in minorities un-aided
schools governed under Chapter V are no longer
contractual in nature but they are statutory. The
qualifications, leaves, salaries, age of retirement, pension,
dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, suspension and
other conditions of service are to be governed exclusively
under the statutory regime provided in Chapter IV. The
Tribunal constituted under Section 11 is the forum
provided for enforcing some of these rights. In Premier
Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of
Bombay and Ors. (1976 (1) SCC 496), it has been
observed that if a statute confers a right and in the same
breath provides for a remedy for enforcement of such
right, the remedy provided by the statute is an exclusive
one. If an employee seeks to enforce rights and
obligations created under Chapter IV, a remedy is available
to him to get an adjudication in the manner provided in
Chapter IV by the prescribed forum i.e. the Tribunal. That
being so, the Tribunal cannot and in fact has no power and(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (29 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]jurisdiction to hear the appeal on merits and only way is to
ask the parties to go for arbitration.”
29.2. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Sanatan
Dharm Sdhastri Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.
522/2013), decided on 19.09.2013 in para 7 has observed as
under:-
“Learned counsel for the respondent-employee supporting the
order dated 30th July, 2001 passed by the Tribunal as well as
the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12th
March, 2013 and reiterating the pleaded facts pointed out that
the respondent-employee never abandoned the job rather he
was exploited and harassed by the appellant to get rid of him
for the reasons best known to the appellant Institute;
probably for he claimed his lawful right in accordance with law
and voiced against the practice to compel him for donation in
favour of the appellant Institute. Further, the appellant
Institute could not assail its own order after having allowed
the respondent-employee to work for 5 years without any
complaint from any quarter. Moreover, under the provisions of
the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993, employees of the
aided institutions are entitled to pay scale at par with the
government employees in view of the principle of “equal pay
for equal work”. Since the respondent-employee was not
allowed to work, he had no option but to ventilate his
grievance before the Tribunal. Moreover, the appellant
Institute continued him in employment for almost five years
and paid salary from the funds of the Managing Committee
without raising any objection as to the nature and legality of
his appointment. The mere fact that the appellant Institute
was availing grant-in-aid did not bring the Institute within the
ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore,
it was not a case of public employment and hence, law
declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court of the land in case of
State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi – [(2006) 4 SCC
1], had no application to the facts of the instant case at
hand.”
29.3. Further, the Division Bench of this High Court at principal
seat, Jodhpur in the case of Bhopalwala Arya Higher
Secondary School Vs. Mr. Nand Lal Saraswat & Ors. (D.B.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (30 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
Civil Special Appeal No. 860/2008), decided on 28.11.2008
has observed in paras 3, 6, 10-13 & 15-16 as under:-
“3. The respondent no. 1 entered the services of the
appellant institution on being appointed as part time
Library Clerk on temporary basis, vide order dated 29.8.98
on a consolidated salary Rs.2,000/-. As per the terms of
the appointment order, the temporary appointment
accorded as aforesaid was to be continued till the end of
the academic session. Accordingly, the services of the
respondent no.1 was brought to an end on the expiry of
the term, however, in the next academic session, vide
order dated 5.7.99 issued on behalf of the appellant
institution, he was reappointed on the said post for a
period of six months w.e.f. 5.7.99 or from the date of the
joining of the duties, whichever is earlier, on consolidated
salary of Rs.2250/-. However, vide order dated 22.12.99,
the term of the appointment was further extended till the
end of the academic session 1999-2000. This arrangement
of fixed term appointment till the end of the academic
sessions continued upto the academic session 2004-05.
Lastly, vide order dated 1.7.04, the respondent no. 1 was
accorded appointment for the period 16.7.04 to 14.5.05.
According to the respondent no. 1 he was in continuous
service of the appellant institution ever since his initial
appointment till his services were brought to an end by an
oral order w.e.f. 8.7.05. In these circumstances, the
validity of the termination of his services as aforesaid was
assailed by the respondent no. 1 by way of an appeal u/s
19 of the Act of 1989 before the learned tribunal.
6. After due consideration, the learned tribunal found that
the respondent no. 1 is covered by the definition of
“employee” as set out in Section 2(i) of the Act of 1989
and therefore, his services could not have been brought to
an end without compliance of the provisions of Section 18
of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993. The
learned tribunal found that the termination of the services
of respondent no.1 at the end of each academic session
and fresh engagement at the beginning of the session was
a device planned by the appellant institution so as to deny
him the salary of summer vacations. The learned tribunal
opined that the termination of services of even a
temporary employee without assigning any reasons
violative of the principle of natural justice. Accordingly,
holding the termination of the services of respondent no. 1
illegal, the learned tribunal directed his reinstatement in
service with the back wages. The respondent no. 1 was
held entitled for salary of the summer vacations as well.
However, the appellant institution has been given liberty to
terminate the services of the respondent no. 1 after due(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (31 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]compliance of the provisions of Act of 1989 and the Rules
of 1993.
10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the material on record.
11. ****
12. ****
13. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 18 of the
Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993, makes it
abundantly clear that primarily, these provisions deal with
dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of the employees of
recognised institution as a measure of disciplinary action
for the acts of misdemeanor committed by them.
The definition of the “employee” set out in Section 2(i)
of the Act of 1989 is couched in very wide terms and it
includes within its ambit a teacher and every other
employee working in the recognised institution, therefore, it
goes without saying that the provisions of Section 18 of the
Act of 1989, which provides that no employee of a
recognised institution shall be removed, dismissed or
reduced in rank unless he has been given by the
management a reasonable opportunity of being heard
against the action proposed to be taken, shall apply even to
the temporary employees. However, in view of the
provisions of Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 1993, the services
of an employee appointed temporarily only for a period of
six months may be terminated by the management of the
institution at any time after giving him at least one month’s
notice or one month’s salary in lieu thereof, therefore,
before termination of services of such a temporary
employee, no opportunity of hearing is required to be given
and before termination of his services, the consent of the
Director of Education is also not required to be obtained.
But, from the provisions of Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 1993,
it can be in no manner inferred that in case of fa fixed term
appointment, may be for a period of six months or more,
the management is required to give an employee a notice
even if he is allowed to continue in service for entire term
of the appointment and his services comes to an end with
the expiry of the term of appointment.
But then, as per clause (iii) of the second proviso to Section
18 and clause (iii) of proviso to Rule 39, the provisions of
Section 18providing for reasonable opportunity of being
heard against the action proposed to be taken shall not
apply where the management committees is of the
unanimous opinion that the services of an employee cannot
be continued without prejudice to the interest of the
institution, however, the services of such employee can be
terminated only after giving him six months notice or salary(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (32 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]in pursuance thereof and after obtaining the consent of the
Director in writing.
In our considered opinion, if an employee has continued in
service of an educational institution governed by the
provisions of Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993, even on
temporary basis for years together then, his services
otherwise than by way of disciplinary proceedings can be
terminated by the management committee of the
institution on the existence of the contingency provided
under clause (iii) of second proviso to Section 18 after
giving him six months notice or salary in lieu thereof and
obtaining the consent of the Director of Education in
writing.
15. It is pertinent to note that before the learned tribunal,
the respondent no. 1 had taken a categorical stand in para
no. 6 of the appeal that he was initially appointed on the
substantive post of Library Clerk vide order dated 29.8.98
on part time basis after adopting due process of selection.
The averments made as aforesaid stands admitted by the
appellant institution in reply to the appeal filed before the
learned tribunal. That apart:, in para no. 8 of the appeal
the respondent no. 1 had taken the specific stand that
under the orders of the Principal of the appellant
institution, he used to come to the school regularly to do
office and library work during the summer vacation,
however, the salary of the summer vacation was denied to
him. A perusal of the reply to the appeal filed before the
learned tribunal show that even these averments have also
not been denied by the appellant institution. Moreover,
from bare perusal of the terms of the appointment orders
issued by the appellant institution time to time, appointing
the respondent no.1 as Library Clerk at the commencement
of the academic session and terminating his services at the
end of the each academic session manifestly shows that the
device of giving appointment for a fixed term as alleged,
was planned just to deny the respondent no. 1 the salary
for the summer vacation and lest he should claim the
permanent appointment on account of continuity of service.
Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
noticed above, in our considered opinion, the action of the
appellant institution in giving appointment to the
respondent no. 1 in each academic session for a fixed term
by giving artificial break is exfacie illegal and arbitrary,
which cannot be countenanced by this Court. Thus, the
artificial breaks deserves to be ignored and the respondent
no. 1 has to be treated in continuous service of the
appellant institution ever since his initial appointment vide
order dated 29.8.98.
16. That apart, the respondent no.1 who was in continuous
service of the appellant institution for about 7 years, his(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (33 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]services could not have been brought to an end without
compliance of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of
1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993. Admittedly, neither
any notice in terms of Section 18 or the salary in lieu
thereof was given to the respondent no. 1 before
termination of his services nor the consent of the Director
of Education has been obtained before termination of his
services, therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned
tribunal has committed no error in holding termination of
the services of respondent no. 1 as illegal being violative of
the provisions of Section 18 and Rule 39 of the Rules
of1993.
29.4. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Managing
Committee Vs. Smt. Pushpa Sharma; reported in (2006) 3
WLC 504 in para 11 has observed as under:-
“11. As regards further submission on applicability of
Section 18 of the Act of 1989, only in case action is taken
by way of disciplinary action and not simple termination,
we are of the view that the main Section 18 and Proviso
(iii) of the Act of 1989 will cover both type of cases and
said Section has (iii) of the Act of 1989 will cover both type
of cases and said Section has been enacted with a view to
check the arbitrary action of the management in removing,
dismissing, reducing in rank and termination also.
Therefore, the provisions of reasonable
opportunity/unanimous resolution of Managing Committee
and approval/consent of the Director are made mandatory
in the order to ensure the fairness of the action. Neither
there is unanimous resolution of the Managing Committee
nor six months notice was given nor payment of six months
salary in lieu of notice was given nor consent of the
Director was taken. Therefore, even if the case is taken to
be of termination, then also mandatory Proviso (iii) of
Section 18 of the Act of 1989 has been violated. The said
Section is applicable in respect of all the employee whose
services have been dismissed by way of disciplinary action
or simple termination.”
30. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Gajanand Sharma Vs. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti and
Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 100-101 of 2023), decided on
19.01.2023, in para 5.5 and 5.6 has categorically held as under:-
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (34 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
“5.5 Even on fair reading of Section 18 of the Act, 1989, we
are 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
(supra) is not a good law.
5.6 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.”
Conclusion & Directions:
31. Applying the above propositions of law, as laid down in the
above noted judgments, it can safely be concluded that in the
case of termination of service of both the regular and temporary
employee of a recognised educational institution, the provisions
contained under Section 18(iii) is required to be followed. Their
services cannot be terminated without giving six months’ notice
or at least six months’ salary.
32. 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
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (35 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]unscrupulous management of the educational institutions. The Act
of 1989 and the Rules of 1993 made thereunder are social
legislation enacted to ameliorate and improve educational system.
Intention of the Act and the Rules formed thereunder, is to check
the various malpractices and mischiefs committed by the mighty
management to exploit its employees whether appointed on
regular or temporary basis. The language contained under Section
18 and Rule 39 is clear and specific and it requires no other
interpretation. These provisions are available to all employees,
whether he/she is appointed on regular or temporary basis.
33. Hence, 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. The judgment relied upon by
the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
34. In the instant matters, 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 service of the
respondents were terminated by the petitioner in an arbitrary
manner. The same was found to be illegal by the Tribunal by
passing a reasoned and speaking order which requires no
interference of this Court.
35. 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.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14355] (36 of 36) [CW-3668/2017]
36. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
37. No order as to cost.
38. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that 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.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
GARIMA /413-451
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 11:21:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link