Mandatory Preconditions for Termination Under Rajasthan Non‑Government Educational Institutions Act

Introduction

Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kesarganj (“the Petitioner”) challenged a common judgment dated 14.09.2016 of the Rajasthan Non‑Government Educational Tribunal, Jaipur (“the Tribunal”) quashing termination orders of several teachers and staff (“the Respondents”). The Respondents claimed they were removed without complying with Section 18(iii) of the Rajasthan Non‑Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (“Act of 1989”) and Rule 39(2)(iii) of the Rajasthan Non‑Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (“Rules of 1993”). The High Court of judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur heard all petitions together and reserved its decision on 28.03.2025. This commentary examines the Court’s ruling that even fixed‑term or contract employees are protected by Section 18(iii) and entitled to statutory safeguards before termination.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the Petitioner’s writ petitions, upholding the Tribunal’s order that the Respondents—though engaged on fixed‑term contracts—are “employees” under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1989. Therefore their termination without six months’ notice (or salary in lieu), unanimous resolution of the managing committee and prior written consent of the Director of Education was illegal. The Court reaffirmed that appeals under Section 19 of the Act are maintainable by any aggrieved “employee,” and no teacher or staff member can be left remediless.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Shri Jatin Swetambar Terapanthi Manav Hitkari Sangh & Ors. v. Rajasthan NGEI Tribunal (DB Civil Writ Petition No. 3610/2003)
• Dr. Sadhana Godika v. Managing Committee, Agarwal Shikshak Parshikshan Mahavidhyalaya (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 878/2016)
• Honorary Secretary, Maheshwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Ravindra Pareek (1996 (3) WLC 102)
• Bhopalwala Arya Higher Secondary School v. Nand Lal Saraswat (DB Civil Special Appeal No. 860/2008)
• Montfort Senior Secondary School v. Vijay Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5143 & 6593 of 2003)
• GAJANAND SHARMA v. ADARSH SIKSHA PARISAD SAMITI & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 100–101 of 2023)
• Ashby v. White, (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938 (U.K.) – principle of “ubi jus ibi remedium”

Legal Reasoning

1. Wide Definition of “Employee”: Section 2(i) of the Act of 1989 includes “every other employee”—regular or temporary—working in a recognised institution.

2. Section 18(iii) Is Mandatory: It provides that an employee’s services may only be terminated after:

1. a unanimous resolution of the managing committee that continuation would prejudice the institution;
2. six months’ notice or six months’ salary in lieu;
3. and prior written consent of the Director of Education.

3. Rule 39(2)(iii) Mirrors Section 18(iii): It reiterates the same safeguard for temporary employees. In a fixed‑term appointment, neither a single‑line order nor summary termination suffices.

4. Equity and Remedy: Courts invoked ubi jus ibi remedium (“where there is a right, there is a remedy”) to hold that no employee can be left without legal recourse. Appeals under Section 19 are thus the exclusive forum to enforce these statutory protections.

Impact

• Broad Applicability: All employees—contractual, temporary or permanent—in non‑government educational institutions in Rajasthan now enjoy statutory safeguards under Section 18 and Rule 39.
• Uniform Procedure: Managements must follow the same due‑process requirements—notice, salary‑in‑lieu and approvals—to terminate anyone, eliminating ad‑hoc dismissals.
• Strengthened Rights: Teachers and staff have clarity on their rights to notice, hearing and appeal, enhancing job security and deterring arbitrary terminations.
• Judicial Precedent: Other jurisdictions may follow this reasoning to protect fixed‑term or contract employees in similar statutory schemes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989

Mandates a six‑month notice (or salary in lieu) plus Director’s approval before terminating any “employee.”

Rule 39(2)(iii) of the Rules of 1993

Repeats Section 18(iii) safeguards specifically for temporary employees, preventing summary terminations.

“Employee” Under Section 2(i)

Includes every teacher or staff member—regardless of tenure—of a recognised non‑govt. educational institution.

Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

“Where there is a right, there is a remedy.” It ensures no legal right is left unenforced.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court has definitively ruled that even fixed‑term or contract employees in recognised non‑government educational institutions enjoy the full protection of Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39(2)(iii) of the Rules of 1993. Managements must comply with mandatory preconditions—unanimous resolution, six months’ notice or salary in lieu, and prior written consent of the Director of Education—before terminating services. This precedent safeguards the rights of all educational staff against arbitrary dismissals and vindicates the principle ubi jus ibi remedium by ensuring every aggrieved “employee” a remedy through an appeal under Section 19.