Temporary Teachers Can Challenge Termination Under Non-Govt Educational Institutions Act, Removal Without Reasons Is Wrong: Rajasthan HC

Section 18 of the Act provides the procedure to remove, dismiss or reduce the rank of the employees in institutions.

Section 19 of the Act laid down the right to appeal in case of grievance against the order passed under Section 18 of the Act.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the Act was a social legislation which was enacted to check the arbitrary action by management of the educational institutions.

"The whole purpose behind enactment of the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 and the provisions made therein i.e. Section 18 and Rule 39 is to check arbitrary action on the part of the unscrupulous management of the educational institutions. The Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993 made thereunder are social legislation enacted to ameliorate and improve educational system. Intention of the Act and the Rules formed thereunder, is to check the various malpractices and mischiefs committed by the mighty management to exploit its employees whether appointed on regular or temporary basis. The language contained under Section 18 and Rule 39 is clear and specific and it requires no other interpretation. These provisions are available to all employees, whether he/she is appointed on regular or temporary basis. Hence, it is clear that appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 is maintainable in similar matters of termination from service, of temporary employees". 

The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions preferred by the managing committee of various educational institutions against an order of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Tribunal, Jaipur wherein the appeals against the termination orders of the teachers were allowed, and directions of their reinstatement were issued.

It was the case of the petitioner management that the respondent teachers were appointed purely on contract basis, for a fixed term in their service tenure, and were not selected through the regular selection process. Hence, it was not required to follow Section 18 in their relation, and accordingly, appeals under Section 19 were also not maintainable as filed by them.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused all the relevant provisions, and highlighted that “employee” under Section 2(i) of the Act included a teacher or every other employee, without distinguishing between a regular or a temporary employee.

The Court also referred to Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rule, 1993 (“the Rules”) and held that,

“A combined reading of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 makes it explicitly clear that in the case of temporary employee, appointed for six months, his services can be terminated by the Management at any point of time, after giving six month's notice or six month's salary in lieu thereof. The first proviso attach to Section 18 of the Act of 1989 requires that approval of the Director of Education is required to be obtained in the matters of removal or dismissal of the employee.”

Highlighting the Act to be a social legislation enacted to check the malpractices and arbitrary hiring-firing policies of the managements of non-government educational institutions, the Court opined:

"In case of regular appointments, the recruitment process is required to be conducted, the vacancies are required to be advertised and the appointments are to be given after getting approval from the State Government. Also, the consent of the representatives of the Department of Education is required. But in case of temporary or contractual appointments, no such procedure is required to be followed. The service of such temporary employees cannot be terminated by passing a single line order, without providing any reasons and the process contained under Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989 is only required to be followed". 

The Court further referred to few cases of the Supreme Court as well as the Rajasthan High Court that had ruled that Section 18 of the Act was also applicable to temporary employees, and opined that it was clear that the appeal under Section 19 of the Act was maintainable in termination matters of temporary employees too.

It was observed that since in the present matter no notice or salary was provided to the terminated employees hired on a temporary basis, the appeals filed by such employees under Section 19 were maintainable.

Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal was upheld and the petitions of educational institutions were rejected.

Title: Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya v Saurabh Upadhayaya, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 144