Summary
Reinstatement orders were set aside where temporary employees lost unaided, unapproved posts following their abolition for financial reasons. Section 18 of the Rajasthan educational-institutions legislation and Rule 39 did not apply to removal consequent on abolition in these circumstances. The abolition decision itself had not been challenged, and its invalidation based merely on receipt of grants and fees, without the full financial picture or findings of mala fides, was unjustified.
Issues
- Whether prior approval and disciplinary-removal procedures applied to removal consequent on abolition of the posts.
- Whether the Tribunal and High Court could invalidate the abolition decision on the available record.
Provisions considered
- Section 18, Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989Did not require prior approval for the removal consequent upon abolition of the temporary, unaided posts whose appointments were not approved by the Education Department. (¶ 11.1–11.2)
- Rule 39, Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993The removal procedures did not apply to abolition of posts; voluntary payment of six months’ salary did not independently attract them. (¶¶ 11.1–11.2, 13)
Held
- Removal consequent on abolition was distinct from disciplinary termination. The contrary application of Section 18 and Rule 39 by the authorities below was erroneous in the stated circumstances. (¶¶ 11.2, 13)
- The State’s clarification on unaided posts and unapproved appointments should have been considered. It postdated the Tribunal decision and was produced by additional affidavit pursuant to the High Court’s own direction. (¶ 11.2)
- The management’s abolition decision was not challenged and no specific finding of mala fides or oblique motive justified its invalidation. Such a decision could be interfered with if arbitrary, mala fide or for an oblique reason. (¶ 12)
- Receipt of grants and student fees alone did not establish financial soundness. Without the balance sheet and full expenditure picture, the High Court could not reject the stated financial justification. (¶ 12.1)
- Payment of six months’ salary did not make Rule 39 applicable where abolition otherwise fell outside it. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeals allowed. Tribunal and High Court orders directing reinstatement of the private respondents quashed and set aside. No costs.