Recognized Institution Bound By Mandate On Removal Of Employees Under Non-Govt Educational Institutions Act: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has said that if any part of an institution was receiving a grant, then the entire institution shall be treated as aided and even if the grant was not received for a particular post, employees on such posts are entitled to protection from removal under State Non-Government Educational Institutions Act and relevant rules.

Justice Anand Sharma further opined that irrespective of receiving any aid, a recognized institution could not be absolved from the mandate of Section 18 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act that laid down procedure for removal, dismissal and reduction in rank of employees.

"...for the purpose of seeking protection of Section 18 under the Act, it is not necessary that the concerned Institution is an aided Institution or not. Merely, if an Institution is recognized under the Act, even in such circumstances compliance of Section 18 of the Act in mandatory. Thus, even if contention of counsel for the Respondent is taken at its face value that no aid was being received against the post held by the petitioner, even then admittedly being a recognized Institution, the respondent-institution was not absolved from rigour of law as mandated by Section 18 of the Act".

The Court stated that while non-government educational institutions received facilities and aid from the State, these were also under legal obligations to strictly comply with the statues, rules and regulations.

“Providing quality education must be first and foremost object of such non-Government institution. Such goal can be achieved only by providing basic essential support to the teaching and non teaching staff of the institutions so that they may not feel insecured on account of arbitrary hire and fire policies adopted by the respondent-institution contrary to the provisions of law.”

The Court was hearing a petition filed against the order of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal (“tribunal”) wherein petitioner's order of termination was upheld.

The Petitioner was appointed as a teacher in a recognized and aided school in 1993. Thereafter in 1999 his services were terminated without following any procedure established under the Act or the Rules. This termination was challenged before the tribunal which was rejected. Hence, petition was filed before the Court.

It was the case of respondent that despite the institution being a recognized and aided institution, the petitioner was never appointed against any sanctioned post, and hence, protection under Section 18 of the Act was not available to him.

After hearing the contentions and perusing records, the Court referred to the definition of “Aided Institutions” under Section 2(c) of the Act, and held that the definition made it clear that if any part of an institution was receiving a maintenance grant, the institution shall be treated as aided irrespective of the fact whether any other part of the institution was covered or not by the aid.

In this light, the Court held that, “even if grant in aid was not being received against the post held by the petitioner, yet by virtue of aforesaid provisions, protection granted to employees of aided institution was also to be applicable in the case of the petitioner and he could not have been deprived of such protection for the reason that some part of the respondent institution was admittedly an aided institution at the relevant time… Learned Tribunal has denied protection of the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 to the petitioner only on account of the fact that petitioner was not appointed against the sanctioned post. Such finding is against the scheme of the Act and is not liable to be sustained.”

Furthermore, the Court made a reference to a Supreme Court case of Gajanand Sharma v Adarsh Siksha Parishad Samiti to hold that for seeking protection under Section 18 of the Act, it was not necessary that the institution was an aided one or not, as long as it was recognized. A recognized institution, irrespective of being aided, had to mandatorily comply with Section 18 of the Act.

In this background, it was ruled that even if the argument of the State was accepted that no aid was received against the post held by the petitioner, being a recognized institution, the respondent was not absolved from the mandate under Section 18 of the Act.

Finally, the Court ruled that while non-governmental educational institutions received aid and facilities from the State, they had legal obligations to follow applicable laws. Providing quality education which was the first and foremost object of such institutions, could be achieved only by providing basic support to the teaching and non-teaching staff.

Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner was terminated in an arbitrary and illegal manner. The petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be re-instated.

Title: Abdul Rahim v the Managing Committee & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 190

Click Here To Read/Download Order