SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has preferred instant writ petition impugning the judgment dated October 27, 2001 of Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short `tribunal') whereby the application filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 21 of Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short `1989 Act') was allowed and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent No. 4 with continuity of service on the post of Ayurved Teacher and allow him pay scale of the said post.
(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of Tribunal suffers from manifest errors of law apparent on face of record as the Tribunal failed to appreciate the preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the application under Section 21 of 1989 Act. Since respondent No. 4 had abandoned the job and his initial appointment on August 1, 1987 was void and ab initio, he was not entitled to any relief. Reliance is placed on Smt. Ravinder Sharma and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others (1), Anand Bharti & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (2), Ram Pratap vs. State of Rajasthan and others (3), Vijay Singh Charan vs. Management Shri Swetamber Nakoda Parshwanath Tirth, Mewa Nagar and another, (4) and Prakash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and Others I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced before me and scanned the material on record. In para 9 of the application the respondent No. 4 stated as under:- " That the applicant has been performing his duties and functions as usual but the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have not been allowed to make attendance in the Attendance Register on account of being annoyed from applicant on account of raising voice against the practice of exploitation. The applicant has moved a representation on 11. 8. 95 to the respondent No. 3 and made request for allowing to make attendance. A photo state copy of representation dated 11. 8. 95 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-8. " In reply to the para the petitioner pleaded thus:- " That the contents of para 9 of the application, as stated, are denied. The applicant be subjected to strict proof of his averments/allegation. However, it is submitted that there is no bar for keeping separate register or registers for making attendance of the employees who are not working against the sanctioned aided post and paid out of the own fund of the institution for convenient of audit purpose etc. " Evidently the facts that respondent No. 4 was not allowed to make his attendance in the Attendance Register on account of being annoyed from him on account of raising voice against the practice of exploitation and that he submitted representation, were not denied specifically by the petitioner. It will be appropriate at this juncture to refer the provisions contained in Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 of Civil Procedure Code, which read as under:- " 3. Denial to be specific. It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages. 5. Specific denial. (1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. (2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved. (3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub rule (1) or under Sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader. (4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. " Since the allegations made by respondent No. 4 have not been specifically denied by the petitioner, it will be presumed that the petitioner did not have any material to controvert the same. It is well settled that disputed questions of fact are not determined in supervisory jurisdiction, that is virtually a revisional jurisdiction. Bench of Hon'ble three Judges of Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And another (6), had occasion to examine this aspect and it was propounded as under:- " The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. "
(3.) SINCE I am satisfied that the Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters, I d not find it a fit case to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed without any order as to costs. .;