The Rajasthan High Court has firmly ruled that any recognized educational institution, even if not fully aided by the government, must follow the legal process before removing an employee. The Court clarified that if any part of an institution receives government grant or aid, the entire institution is considered as aided, and its employees are protected under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989.
Justice Anand Sharma, who delivered the judgment, emphasized:
"It is not necessary that the institution be fully aided. If it is recognized, it must follow Section 18 of the Act. Protection under this section applies even if no aid is received for the specific post held by the employee."
Read Also:- Allahabad HC Grants Bail to BJP Leader Accused of Brutal Murder in Agra
The Court was hearing the case of Abdul Rahim v. The Managing Committee & Ors. Rahim, a teacher, was working in a recognized school in Sikar since 1993. He faced repeated breaks in employment and was finally removed in 1999 without any notice or inquiry. His plea before the Education Tribunal was rejected, leading him to approach the High Court.
The institution argued that Rahim was not appointed against an "aided post" and thus, wasn't protected under Section 18. However, the Court disagreed, referring to Rule 2(c) of the 1993 Rules, which clearly states:
“If any part of an institution receives a maintenance grant, the entire institution shall be treated as aided.”
Read Also:- Denial of Public Job Due to Hepatitis B Illegal, Violates Article 14: Kerala High Court
Justice Sharma stressed that even temporary or non-sanctioned posts fall under the protective umbrella of the law. The judgment highlighted that:
“Providing quality education must be the main goal of non-Government institutions. This cannot happen if staff are insecure due to arbitrary firing, which is against the law.”
The Court further noted that the school management misled the Tribunal by first denying the termination and later submitting a termination order. This lack of transparency was condemned as unfair.
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Keeps Stay Order on PMLA Case Against M3M Director in Abeyance Till July 30
Quoting a previous Supreme Court decision in Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parishad Samiti, the Court said:
“Recognized institutions must follow due procedure, including getting prior approval from the Director of Education before dismissal.”
Finally, the High Court quashed the termination, declared it illegal, and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner. Although Rahim will not get back pay, he will receive all seniority and service benefits on a notional basis.
Title: Abdul Rahim v the Managing Committee & Ors.
