Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of an employee serving with a non-governmental educational institution under the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the employee, culminating in termination without obtaining prior approval from the Director of Education as mandated by Section 18 of the Act. The employee challenged this before the Tribunal, which set aside the termination order due to non-compliance with Section 18, a decision confirmed by a Single Judge of the High Court. However, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the management's appeal, quashed the Tribunal and Single Judge orders, and upheld the termination, relying on a Larger Bench decision of the High Court that read down Section 18 to exclude cases of termination after disciplinary enquiry. The core legal issue was whether prior approval of the Director of Education under Section 18 is mandatory for termination after disciplinary proceedings, and whether the High Court erred in not following the binding Supreme Court precedent in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education, which dealt with pari materia provisions under the Delhi School Education Act. The employee argued that the High Court impermissibly disregarded the Supreme Court's decision in Raj Kumar, which held prior approval mandatory, and erroneously claimed it did not consider T.M.A. Pai Foundation, whereas it had. The management contended that Raj Kumar was inapplicable as it involved termination without enquiry, and that the High Court's Larger Bench decision correctly interpreted Section 18. The Supreme Court analyzed that Section 18 explicitly requires prior approval for removal, dismissal, or reduction in rank, and that the High Court's failure to follow Raj Kumar was incorrect and impermissible. The Court emphasized that Raj Kumar had considered T.M.A. Pai Foundation and established that prior approval is mandatory even for non-aided institutions and after disciplinary proceedings, making the High Court's contrary view untenable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the employee's appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the orders of the Tribunal and Single Judge, holding that the termination was invalid due to lack of prior approval.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Employee Termination - Mandatory Prior Approval - Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989, Section 18 - Employee terminated after disciplinary enquiry without prior approval of Director of Education - Tribunal and Single Judge set aside termination for non-compliance - High Court Division Bench erroneously upheld termination by not following binding Supreme Court precedent - Held that prior approval is mandatory under Section 18 regardless of disciplinary enquiry, and High Court must follow Supreme Court decisions on pari materia provisions (Paras 1-5). B) Judicial Precedent - Binding Nature of Supreme Court Decisions - High Court's Duty to Follow - Constitution of India - High Court Division Bench failed to follow Supreme Court decision in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education, erroneously claiming it did not consider T.M.A. Pai Foundation - Supreme Court found this factually incorrect as Raj Kumar had considered T.M.A. Pai Foundation - Held that High Court's non-following was impermissible and binding precedents must be followed (Paras 3-5). C) Statutory Interpretation - Pari Materia Provisions - Section 8 Delhi School Education Act and Section 18 Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 - Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education interpreted Section 8 of Delhi School Education Act as requiring prior approval for termination - This interpretation applies to Section 18 of Rajasthan Act as pari materia provisions - Held that prior approval is mandatory for termination even in non-aided institutions and after disciplinary proceedings (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether prior approval of the Director of Education under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 is mandatory for termination of an employee after disciplinary enquiry, and whether the High Court erred in not following the binding Supreme Court decision in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court Division Bench, and restored the orders of the Tribunal and Single Judge, holding termination invalid due to lack of prior approval under Section 18
Law Points
- Prior approval of Director of Education is mandatory under Section 18 of Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act
- 1989 for termination of employees in recognized institutions
- even after disciplinary enquiry
- and High Courts must follow binding Supreme Court precedents on pari materia provisions
