AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant had challenged an order dated 17/01/2014 passed by Agarwal Shikshan Prashikshan Mahavidhyalaya Jaipur, a Non-Government Educational Institution, extending her term as Principal of the College till regularly selected Principal was appointed or 31/03/2014, whichever was earlier. The challenge was before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur. The challenge failed. Vide decision dated 11/03/2014, the appeal filed was dismissed by the Tribunal. Writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge by the appellant laying a challenge to the decision dated 11/03/2014 passed by the Tribunal has been dismissed vide impugned order dated May 4, 2014.
Relevant facts are that Agarwal Shikshan Prashikshan Mahavidhyalaya Jaipur was established in the year 2007, when appellant was appointed as its Principal on 18/01/2007 on temporary basis. The appellant continued on temporary basis on orders passed from time to time.
As a term of recognition of the institution by the University of Rajasthan and its affiliation with the University a condition was put that the Principal of the College would be appointed by a duly constituted selection committee.
For reasons unknown, the appellant continued to serve as a Principal without undergoing the process of selection through a duly constituted selection committee till 2014.
Case of the appellant was premised on Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Condition) Rules, 1993 as per which, the service of staff of a Non- Government Educational Institution cannot be dispensed with otherwise than in accordance with the Act and the Rules in question.
Rule 39 deals with removal or dismissal from service of employees of Non-Governmental Educational Institutions and requires a month's notice or one month salary in lieu thereof to be paid to the employee appointed temporarily for six months. The rule envisages dismissal or removal on ground of insubordination, inefficiency, misconduct or neglecting to the duties but after holding an enquiry. Section 18 covers the field of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank and contemplates an enquiry.
Suffice it to state that the provisions of the Act and the Rules would govern the employees recruited as per Rule 26 which mandates appointment to be made on the basis of a merit after inviting applications from all eligible candidates and prescribes the qualifications to be possessed and constitution of a selection committee. The appellant's appointment was obviously not as per the rules for the reason probably when she was appointed the institution had not been recognised.
The appellant not being appointed pursuant to a selection process being initiated as per Rule 29, she cannot claim the benefit of either Rule 39 or Section 18. We also cannot overlook the fact that a term of the recognition of the institution, of which the appellant was a Principal, is that the Principal would be appointed through a duly constituted selection committee and possessing the requisite educational qualification.
The writ appeal is dismissed in limine.