CWP 14/02 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.14/2002 Rajendra K. Sharma Versus Managing Committee Shri Haidaria Sec.Schol, Sunel & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 01/04/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sajid Ali for Mr. Prahlad Singh, for petitioner Mr. Shivlal Meena, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for respondent State Vide order dt.04/01/02, this Court issued notice to show cause as to why this petition be not heard, admitted and finally disposed of at admission stage. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no.1 (School) despite service of notice. Respondent No.2 is represented by Government Counsel. Instant petition has been filed assailing judgment dt.31/10/01 of Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur whereby despite observing that impugned termination of his services vide order dt.30/04/96 was in violation of S.18 of Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (“Act, 1989”) and R.39 of Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions (Recognition, grant-in-aid & service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (“Rules, 1993”) appeal of petitioner was dismissed on the premise of it being filed after expiry of period of limitation. Petitioner was appointed as Teacher in CWP 14/02 //2// respondent (School) on 28/07/1988 and after having worked for almost eight years, his services were termination w.e.f. 01/05/96 vide order dt.30/04/96 (Ann.1) which was challenged before Tribunal by way of application moved U/s 21 of the Act, 1989. After taking note of material on record, learned Tribunal observed that termination order impugned was not in due consonance with Rules, 1993; but observed that in regard the order passed by educational institution, appeal can be filed within sixty days invoking S.19 of the Act, and since the appeal was preferred by petitioner against order dt.30/04/96 on 13/01/97 which was barred by limitation and in absence of application being filed seeking condonation, his appeal was dismissed. Counsel for petitioner submits that application was preferred U/s 21 of the Act, 1989 and not an appeal U/s 19, as observed under impugned judgment. Counsel also submits S.18 of the Act, 1989 confines to the orders passed by way of major penalty while, termination in case of petitioner was simpliciter; as such application could be filed U/s 21, for which no limitation has been provided and accordingly, very finding recorded by learned Tribunal holding his application as time barred is not legally CWP 14/02 //3// sustainable and requires interference. None appeared for respondent No.1 despite service of notice. Government Counsel submits that it is a lis between aided educational institution and petitioner and petitioner moved application U/s 21 of the Act, 1989 against order of termination simpliciter for which Act, 1989 does not prescribe period of limitation. I have considered contentions of the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. It was a termination simpliciter of petitioner's services vide order dt.30/04/96 and not by way of a penalty; as such application was moved by petitioner assailing order of his termination simpliciter by invoking S.21 of the Act, 1989 and under scheme of Act, 1989, no period of limitation is prescribed for moving application U/s 21 of the Act. S.18 of the Act, 1989 is ordinarily invoked, if services of an employer/teacher have been dispensed with as a measure of penalty after holding disciplinary inquiry under Scheme of Rules; and as against such orders passed by recognised/aided institutions U/s 18 of the Act, 1989, appeals be can be preferred before the Tribunal U/s 19, which provides period of limitation under sub-section (2). CWP 14/02 //4// As regards petitioner, he has challenged order of termination simpliciter by moving application U/s 21 of the Act, 1989 for which no period of limitation is prescribed. In this view of matter, very finding recorded by Tribunal by invoking S.19(2) of the Act, 1989, while rejecting application of petitioner, is a manifest error being committed, which deserves to be set aside. Consequently, writ petition is hereby allowed along with stay petition. Judgment dt. 31/10/01 of the Tribunal (respondent No.3) is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide appeal of petitioner afresh on merits after affording opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. Since matter relates to the termination passed way back on 30/04/96, it is expected of the Tribunal to dispose of appeal expeditiously. No order as to costs. A copy of order be sent to the Tribunal (respondent No.3) for compliance. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/14CWP02EduTri-0104.doc