Amitava Roy, C.J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. J.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Yogesh Shastri, learned counsel for the respondents. The pleaded facts reveal that the respondent No. 1 approached the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") under Sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") alleging that her name had been struck off from the register of the employees of the appellant school i.e. Bela Middle School which was in violation of the prescription of 39 of the Act. She had served the school from October 1987 to July, 1993 when her services were terminated as such. The appellant school resisted the appeal before the learned Tribunal on the ground that firstly the respondent No. 1 was not in its rolls and thus was not its employee and secondly, no action having been taken against her under Sec. 18 of the Act no appeal was maintainable under Sec. 19 thereof.
(2.) THE learned Tribunal rejected both these contentions and interfered with the action of removal/termination of the respondent No. 1. The learned Single Judge sustained the decision of the learned Tribunal being of the view that striking out the name of the respondent No. 1 in the register of the appellant school did tantamount to her removal from service. Mr. Yadav has argued that though the respondent No. 1 had, in fact, rendered services as Sevika under the school, she by no means at any point of time could be construed to be an employee under the Act and thus though she was discontinued in the month of May, 1994, there was neither any cause of action for preferring any appeal before the learned Tribunal nor for seeking the relief of her reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. The learned counsel apprised this Court that the appellant school has since been closed under the orders of the Government in the month of May 1997 and as such in any view of the matter, it cannot be held liable for any relief grantable to the respondent No. 1 beyond that point of time.
(3.) IN reply, Mr. Shastri has urged that having regard to the services rendered by the respondent No. 1, she is an employee within the meaning of Section 2(i)(j) of the Act and that her removal in the case being under Sec. 18 of the Act an appeal before the learned Tribunal is contemplated under Sec. 19 of the Act. According to him, the appellant school has not been closed but only the name thereof has been changed to Hillview school and that the same is functioning as on date.;