Judicature For Rajasthan High Court · 2012

Mr.Prahlad Singh, for the petitioners. By the Court: By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 31.12.2009. By the aforesaid order, termination of the respondent-employee has been set aside holding it to be in violation of Section 18 of Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1989”). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that notice for closure of institution was given to the Government as per Section 14 read with Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Non- government Educational Institutions (Recognition Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short “the Rules of 1993”). This was precisely for the reason that Government 2 did not allow appropriate grant-in-aid to run the petitioner institution, hence, facing financial clinches, a decision was taken to close the institution. Prior approval for closure is not required under the Act and Rules but the Government sent a letter that closure is illegal as it is without their permission.

On the aforesaid ground and in view of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the order of termination was held to be illegal. During pendency of the writ petition, the State Government appointed Administrator and it is learnt that a bond was also taken from the employees that they will not claim any benefit of salary other than what has to be paid. The bond was furnished by the employees and now pursuant to the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (for short 'the Rules of 2010'), employees have been absorbed in the government service. The petitioner institution maintained this writ petition at the stage when Rules of 2010 had not come and otherwise liability can be fastened on them arising out of impugned order of Tribunal. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly admitted that no execution petition has been filed by the employees as yet. This is even after passing of more than a year and eight months by now.

In the light of the aforesaid, adjudication of this 3 matter remains only academic in nature as so far as the employees are concerned, they have been absorbed by the Government by giving appointment under the Rules of 2010 and for the wages of intervening period, a bond was taken that employees will not claim any wages other than what has been paid by the State Government. In the aforesaid background, no purpose remains to adjudicate the issue raised herein because it remains only academic in nature. But the legal issue has to be kept open for its proper adjudication inasmuch as interpretation of Section 14 read with Rule 10 needs proper adjudication in appropriate case. This is moreso when it is argued that prior permission to close the institution is not required. In the light of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of without going into merit of the case but with the liberty to the petitioners to seek revival of these writ petition if an application for execution or any other application is filed to claim benefit arising out of impugned order. Legal issue as raised in this writ petition is also kept open for its adjudication in the appropriate case. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. bnsharma/preety All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been 4 incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed. (BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW