Summary
An employee of an unaided recognised school in Rajasthan was terminated in 1998 after a disciplinary enquiry, without the prior approval of the Director of Education. The Tribunal and the Single Judge set the termination aside. The Division Bench restored it, declining to follow Raj Kumar on the mistaken view that it had not considered T.M.A. Pai Foundation. The Supreme Court reversed. The proviso to Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 requires prior approval for any removal or dismissal, with or without an enquiry. The High Court's Larger Bench decision in Central Academy Society was overruled to that extent. The employee was reinstated with 50% back wages.
Issues
- Whether prior approval of the Director of Education under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 is required before terminating an employee of a recognised institution after a departmental enquiry.
- Whether the High Court could decline to follow Raj Kumar v. Director of Education on the ground that it had not considered T.M.A. Pai Foundation.
Provisions considered
- Section 18 and proviso, Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989The provision draws no distinction between removal after an enquiry and removal without one; read as it stands with the proviso, no final order of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank may be passed without prior approval of the Director of Education. (¶¶ 5, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6)
- Section 8(2), Delhi School Education Act, 1973Raj Kumar held this pari materia provision to be a procedural safeguard against arbitrary termination even in recognised private schools, as followed in Marwari Balika Vidyalaya. (¶¶ 5.2, 5.4)
Held
- Raj Kumar was binding on the High Court, which could not decline to follow it; its observation that Raj Kumar had not considered T.M.A. Pai Foundation was also factually wrong, as Raj Kumar discussed that decision in many paragraphs, and judicial discipline requires a judgment of this Court to be read thoroughly before comment. (¶ 5.1)
- Even after a departmental enquiry, termination or removal of an employee of a recognised institution requires prior approval of the Director of Education under the proviso to Section 18; the Larger Bench decision in Central Academy Society reading down Section 18 is not good law to that extent. (¶¶ 5.4, 5.5, 5.6)
- The termination without prior approval is set aside and the employee reinstated; since the institution is unaided and the termination dates from 1998, he receives 50% back wages with other benefits, including seniority, notionally; the connected appeal on equal pay, not decided on merits, is remanded. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 100-101 of 2023 allowed; the Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 06.05.2022 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1077 of 2005 set aside and the Tribunal's order restored, with reinstatement and 50% back wages; the order in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 826 of 2011 set aside and remanded for fresh decision; no costs.