- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in this review petition, at the first blush, we are of the tentative opinion that there being nothing of an apparent error in the impugned order dated 13.03.2012 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench in SAW No.813/2003, this review petition was required to be dismissed summarily but then, for the submission as repeatedly made, we have examined the matter fartherer; and what we find is that the attempt on the part of the petitioner is to over-reach the process of law. In the circumstances of the case, even while not entertaining this review petition, we feel rather compelled to make comments adverse to the petitioner and to saddle with her costs.
(2.) THE relevant background aspects of the matter for the present purpose are that the petitioner herein was working on the post of Teacher with the non-petitioner No.3: Shri Sanatan Dharma Girls Senior Higher Secondary School, Sri Ganganagar ('the institution' hereinafter); and her services came to be terminated by the order dated 18.03.1999. There had been another dispute between the petitioner and the institution regarding the outstanding amount for the joining period when she was transferred from one place to another. These matters were taken to the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur ('the Tribunal') who, by the order dated 30.08.2003, accepted the prayers as made by the petitioner and while quashing the termination order dated 18.03.1999, directed her reinstatement and payment of the outstanding amount but while leaving it open for the institution to initiate an inquiry as per rules. The institution attempted to question the common order so passed by the Tribunal by way of two writ petitions bearing numbers 5894/2003 and 5895/2003. These petitions were considered together by a learned Single Judge of this Court and were decided by a common order dated 20.10.2003. In regard to the subject matter of the present case, i.e., the termination order dated 18.03.1999, the learned Single Judge noticed the order passed by the Tribunal and found no illegality therein while observing as under:- "Vide impugned order dated 30-8-2003, while partly allowing the appeal and quashing the termination order dated 18-3-1999, the Tribunal left it open for the petitioner to initiate an inquiry against the respondent No.2 under rule 39 (2)(Ga) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 and thereafter the management Committee will be at liberty to take appropriate decision under rule 2 (Gha) of the Rules, 1993. Thus, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned order dated 30- 8-2003 passed by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the respondent No.2." The learned Single Judge also found no error in the other part of order passed by the Tribunal in regard to the joining period; and, accordingly, dismissed both the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, the institution preferred two intra-court appeals, being SAW Nos.813/2003 and 814/2003. Both these appeals were decided together by a co-ordinate Bench on 13.03.2012. After taking note of the background aspects and the contentions on the part of the appellants that some inquiry was held against the present petitioner, the Court found that the Tribunal had examined the issue in detail and came to the conclusion that the termination order was not sustainable for having been passed without inquiry. It was also noticed that the learned Single Judge concurred with the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition by making almost the same observations. The co-ordinate Bench, in effect, concurred with the orders as passed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge; and found no reason to interfere while observing as under: - "13. In our opinion also, since termination was based upon some kind of charges, which are apparent when we perused the Enquiry Report relied upon by the appellant, it was necessary for the employer � appellant to hold an enquiry into the charges levelled against the respondent No.2 by serving her a charge sheet and then probe into the charges. 14. In the light of foregoing discussion, we are not impressed by any of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal as in our opinion, the order passed by the Tribunal and upheld by the writ court deserves to be upheld by this Court in the appeal."
(3.) THE Division Bench, however, did not leave the matter at that only and proceeded to issue further directions, in the apparent anxiety to ensure proper compliance of the order of the Tribunal. These directions, as contained in paragraph-15 of the judgment dated 13.03.2012 read as under: "15. We accordingly while dismissing the appeal uphold the impugned order and for ensuring proper compliance of the order of the Tribunal, direct as infra. In our opinion, such directions will bring a logical conclusion of the case one way or other and will also settle rights so far as the respective parties are concerned. (i) The respondent No.2 will be allowed to join the duties with the appellant school within three weeks on the post of Teacher Grade III from the date of this order. (ii) The appellant shall then hold an enquiry strictly in accordance with the Rules applicable to the appellant/respondent by giving her charge sheet specifying therein the charges for the mis-conduct that she is alleged to have committed while in service of the appellant along with all documents. (iii)The appellant shall appoint Enquiry Officer/Committee after securing the reply from the respondent No.2 of the charge sheet along with the necessary documents. (iv)The enquiry will accordingly be held within within three months after affording an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and to cross- examine the witnesses after exchanging the documentary evidence filed by the parties and individually in support of their case. (v) The appellant will then pass appropriate order depending upon the finding of the Enquiry Oficer/Committee in respect of the charges. (vi)In case, if respondent No.2 does not join the duties with the appellant within three weeks, then she will loose the rights of the reinstatement with the appellant and in such event, it will not be necessary for the appellant to hold any enquiry into the charges, which according to them are available for probing into the matter. (vii)In case, if the respondent No.2 joins, then the order of this Court shall be given effect to as directed. (viii)The respondent in the event of joining within three weeks shall be paid salary from the date of her appointment at par with the Teacher Grade III working with the appellant from the date of her joining till final decision is taken by the appellant in respect of her case." In this petition, the petitioner seeks review of the aforesaid judgment dated 13.03.2012. It is submitted that the appeal as filed by the institution in the year 2003 remained pending in this Court until the year 2012 and in the meantime, the petitioner joined the "Govt. job on 12.04.2005 after due process of selection."; and is continuing as such. It is further submitted that the fact of her joining the Government services had been in the knowledge of the institution but the same was not conveyed to the Court; and the fact remains that the service record of the petitioner has been destroyed by the institution. With these submissions it is suggested that in the given circumstances, the judgment dated 13.03.2012 is required to be modified. It is yet further submitted that after promulgation of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010, the employees working in the aided Non-Government Educational Institutions were absorbed in Government job and, therefore, the post on which the petitioner was working stood "absorbed" in the year 2010. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there was no post available for her to join with the institution. It is further submitted that the petitioner was never called upon by the institution to join the service even after dismissal of the writ petition and then, the institution destroyed the service record of the petitioner; and that the institution was getting benefit of its own wrong. While asserting that she had not been engaged in any gainful employment from the date of illegal termination until joining of Government service on 12.04.2005, what the petitioner has suggested in this review petition in the name of equities is as under: - "5. That looking the particular facts and the circumstances of the present case, while upholding the Judgments of learned single Judge, and Non Applicant No.2 it is most humbly prayed that an appropriate order may kindly be passed on the count of equity in favor of Humble applicant, by providing salary from the date of termination till the date of joining Govt. services, a lump- sump compensation to the humble applicant, because the Joining of the Humble applicant and enquiry in this matter was not possible." ;