AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 16.7.2005 passed by Non Governmental Education Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur whereby her appeal was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has failed to take notice of the documents which were also filed before it. The experience certificate as well as photographs of the school documents of having performed duty were also filed alongwith affidavit. The respondents have not denied the existence of documents but stated that the same was issued wrongfully. The case of the petitioner is that she was working as class IV employee since 1986 with Adarsh Bal Nikunj-Respondent No. 1 and her services were terminated on 26.6.2003 whereafter she has raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer however realizing that the provision of Non Governmental Education Institutions Act, 1989 would apply, she preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rejected her appeal stating that the petitioner has not been able to prove the case.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that documents were filed and affidavit was filed. The respondent authorities did not file counter affidavit neither the cross-examination was conducted nor any exhibits were taken in the case of "Tagore Bal Niketan Madhyamki Vidyalaya Vs. State of Rajasthan" wherein it held as under:
"Keeping in mind the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Tribunal is akin to Civil Court for the purpose of adjudication of disputes relating to the Act of 1989 and its order are deemed to be a decree of Civil Court of original jurisdiction."
This court has also observed that the respondents have filed their reply before this court wherein they do not deny the fact of the petitioner having worked with them but it is stated that there was no post sanctioned as Class IV employee and there were only sanctioned aided pot of Teacher Grade III. However, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was working with them and merely submitted that the petitioner has not been able to place on record any document where as there are experience certificates placed on record.
This court finds that approach adopted by the Tribunal is only wanting. Once the appeal is preferred before the Tribunal in terms of Act, 1989, the Tribunal is required to examine the case after taking on record the affidavit allowing the examination by either side. The respondents may file their affidavits if need so arises. The record of the Concerned respondents can also be called for verification or asked to be summoned by the aggrieved person. It is only thereafter that the judgment should be passed giving a finding on the evidence which has come on record.
However, it is noticed that only on the basis of pleadings without taking evidence or any affidavit the decision are being rendered by the Tribunal which create civil rights in favour of individual and recovery proceedings are also initiated in concerned court of jurisdiction in terms of the 27A as a decree. Thus, it is necessary that the Tribunal follows at least the basic principles laid down in CPC.
It is further noticed that the State Government is required to frame rule for the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal. The State Government is expected to take steps in this regard and frame necessary procedure to be followed by the Non Governmental Education Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur so that it may be effectively work and cases are decided and quietness is given to it at that stage itself.
The order dated 16.7.2005 passed in view of above, by the Tribunal is set aside with directions to the Tribunal to examine the case afresh, after following the procedure, as directed hereinabove.
The exercise shall be conducted within a period of 6 months. Both the parties shall present themselves before the Tribunal on 5th August, 2019. It goes without saying that the petitioner as well as the respondents would be allowed to file additional pleadings.
With the said directions, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.