- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by Managing Committee, Arya Kanya Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Bharatpur inter alia challenging judgment of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal dated 2.8.2002 with the prayer that the same be quashed and set aside and it be declared that this order is incapable of execution and the execution proceedings pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bharatpur, being honest, be quashed and set aside. Further prayer has been made that Section 27A of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 be declared ultra vires of the constitution of India for the reason that no assent of the President of India was obtained therefore. Dr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division is not competent to entertain execution petition for implementation of judgment of the Tribunal dated 2.8.2002. It was argued that according to provisions of Section 19 and 21 of the Rajasthan Civil Court Ordinance, 1950 the said Court is competent to decide civil suit upto valuation of Rs. 25,000/- and therefore its power to entertain execution petition would also be confined to that limit. Section 27A being repugnant to Section 19 of the Rajasthan civil Courts Ordinance is liable to be declared ultra vires of the Constitution. It is argued that the assent of the President of India was obtained at the time when the Act was promulgated by the State. However, no assent has been obtained for the newly inserted Section 27A, which empowers the lowest civil Court having territory jurisdiction over the local area in which the respondents, against whom the order has made, ordinarily resides or carries on business etc. The ultimate direction issued in the impugned order dated 2.8.2002 passed by the Tribunal is absolutely vague, unambiguous and unclear. Those directions are therefore incapable of being executed. In fact, the learned executing Court itself was unable to apprehend the nature of such directions, therefore, it requisitioned the opinion by his letter dated 9.2.2007 shown his inability to provide any guidance, thereafter, the matter was further sent to the District Education Officer, who thereupon by letter dated 15.2.2007 gave his opinion. It is settled law that an executing Court has to execute a decree as it is and it cannot go behind the decree. On this proposition of law, learned counsel cited judgment of Supreme Court in Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School Arya Samaj Mandir Jhajjar vs. Smt. Rajwanti & Ors. , : (2007 (2) WLC (SC) (Raj.) 6.
(2.) Dr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel further argued that originally the respondent filed execution application on 16.3.2004 claiming payment of Rs. 3,08,804/- only. Thereafter, she filed another application on 16.3.2004 claiming payment of Rs. 3,58,750/-. Then by application Annexure-6 dated 16.10.2006, she claimed payment of Rs. 6,41,772/- and thereafter she again raised the amount to Rs. 9 lacs by filing yet another application. Learned counsel submitted that all this happened because the order passed by the Tribunal was vague and unspecific. Learned counsel in support of this argument cited judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. TCI Finance Ltd. vs. Calcutta Medical Centre Ltd. & Anr. (, : 2005 AIR(SC) 3654 .
(3.) Dr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondent was entitled to leave encashment of only 53 days as against 300 days claimed by her. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the photo copy of the service book of the respondent wherein her leave account was maintained. The photo copy of the service book is filed on record by the petitioner with an additional affidavit.;