1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4593/2000. : : Prem Narain Tiwari Vs. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. : : Date of Order 23.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Arpit Srivastava for the respondents. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur dated 28.7.2000 whereby his application against the order of his termination was dismissed as being not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner originally filed civil suit against the order of his termination dated 7.2.1968. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 was promulgated by State 2 Legislature, which was enforced on 1.1.1993. The said Act in Section 27 creates a bar for Civil Courts to settle, decide or deal with any question covered by the said Act, which are required to be decided by Tribunal. The Civil Court, therefore, by its order dated 30.7.1998 transferred the matter to the Tribunal in terms of Section 21 (1) of the Act. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 28.7.2000 rejected the application of the petitioner holding that it would have no jurisdiction in the matter. Learned counsel cited judgment of this Court in Suresh Chand Garg Vs. Shri Sanatan Dharm Uchha Madhyamic Vidyalaya & Ors. : 1997 (1) WLC (Raj.), 303 and argued that this Court in the aforesaid judgment on interpretation of various provisions referred to above held that bar contained in Section 27 as to jurisdiction of Civil Courts on the dispute covered by Act of 1989 and would apply even to all civil suits pending before the Civil Court at the time of promulgation of the Act, therefore, this Court transferred the suit challenging the termination of the employee to the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent- institute sought to submit that respondent No.2 is not an aided institution, therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. 3 5. In view of what has been held by this Court in judgment of Suresh Chand Garg (supra), I need not examine the controversy in greater details, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of Tribunal dated 28.7.2000 is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with direction to decide the same in accordance with law and on merits, as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view that matter pertains to termination of 1968, within a year from the date copy of this order is produced before it. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.5.2009 together with certified copy of this order for revival of the application and its disposal on merits. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.35.