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.