SECRETARY,AKOLATALUKAEDUCATIONSOCIETY & Anr. v. SHIV An & Ors.

3.1. In view of the provisions contained in sub-clause (ii) of clause (2) ~f Rule 26, it was not necessary to obtain prior approval of the Education Officer, as a technical or a vocational school does not come within the purview thereof. B · The contention raised by the appellants before the Tribunal that the institute was required to be closed down was found to be factually incorrect and on that ground the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the termination of services of the respondents were bad in law cannot be said to be suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. (Para 19) (957-F) C ·

3.2 It is now well-settled that back wages should not granted' automatically. The Tribunal however, ought not to have granted full back wages. Full back wages should not be granted only because it would be lawful · to do so. Before such an order is passed, a judicial or quasi-judicial authority' D must consider all aspects of the matter. Appellant has produced facts to show· decline in strength of the students in different disciplines. The same has not · been disputed. In some disciplines the strength of the students has considerably ' gone down. The school is an unaided one. It, therefore, must meet its financial need from the fees realiud from the students. It was a relevant consideration. 1 The Tribunal failed to take the said fact into consideration. The financial· · E condition of the school has not been denied or disputed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, interest of justice shall be met if grant of back wages is confined to 25% only from the date of termination of the respondents till their reinstatement. (Paras 21 and 23) (957-G-H; 958-B; G, H) F