1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5229/2002. Jhabar Mal Yadav Vs. RNGEIT Jaipur & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5141/2002. Babu Lal Sharma Vs. RNGEIT Jaipur & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4784/2001. Ratti Ram Jat Vs. RNGEIT Jaipur & Ors. : : Date of Order 20.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. D. P. Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Dharmendra Pareek for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These writ petitions are directed against the judgment of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 24.3.2001. 3. Petitioners originally approached the Tribunal with the prayer that respondent-educational institution may be directed to allow them to discharge their duties and also direct to pay their salary and allowances at par with what is paid to 2 the employees of their status in Government Educational Institution. The respondent-Educational Institution in reply to the appeals/applications submitted by petitioners contended that petitioners have already been removed from services on 16.5.1999. The Tribunal although partly allowed the applications as regards the relief of parity with Government teachers in the matter of salary and allowances, but dismissed the applications for other relief observing that order of removal has not been specifically challenged by petitioners. 4. Shri D. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners never served copy of removal order and this stand taken by the respondents for the first time in their reply before the Tribunal. It was contended that even otherwise specific prayer was made in the applications before the Tribunal that action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioners to discharge their duties be declared illegal and implicit therein thus was also challenged to order of removal. 5. Shri Dharmendra Pareek, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that 3 judgment passed by Tribunal is just legal and does not call any interference. 6. Having regard to the facts of the cases, I find that approach taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. Even if there was no specific challenge to the order of removal because such order was never served upon the petitioner, therefore, the appropriate course would have been to require the petitioners to amend their applications before Tribunal itself and that can be done even now by remanding the matter to the Tribunal back. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 24.3.2001 passed by Tribunal is set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Tribunal allowing the petitioners to suitably amend their applications/appeals to challenge the order of their removal dated 16.5.1999. The respondents would be at liberty to file reply to the amended application. The Tribunal would expeditiously decide the matter fresh in accordance with law only to the extent of dismissal of applications with regard to validity of termination order. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.35 to 37.