- (1.) Heard Mr.R.D.Rastogi, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.R.K.Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Aditya Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
(2.) The facts, in short, necessary for the present adjudication, are that the applicants had instituted D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.829/2012, seeking inter alia the annulment of the amendment to Section 7(1) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), as referred to therein, and for an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to continue the payment of grant-in-aid to their college, against their posts. They pleaded that they had been the working lecturers in L.B.S.College, Jaipur in Zoology and English respectively, run by the respondent No.6 against sanctioned and aided posts on permanent basis, after due selection. Referring to the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the applicants/writ petitioners disclosed that they were not interested to join the government job, as contemplated therein, but with the promulgation of the Ordinance, making amendment to Section 7(1) of the Act predicating that the aid granted under the provisions thereof or the Rules made thereunder, might be stopped by the State Government at any time, they, alongwith many others, being awed and apprehensive of the probable consequences, approached this Court for redress. On 13.12.2011, an order was passed by the Director, College Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to the effect that since most of the lecturers working in private aided educational institutions on aided and sanctioned posts had opted for government job under the Rules, it had been decided to discontinue the grant-in-aid, hitherto provided by the government to such institutions. According to the applicants/writ petitioners, during the pendency of their writ petition, alongwith those of others, two separate orders dated 26.3.2012 were passed by the Managing Committee of LBS College, Jaipur, informing them that in view of the stoppage of grant-in-aid, their aided posts had come to an end, and therefore, their services were terminated w.e.f.27.3.2012. The applicants/writ petitioners have stated that these termination orders were brought on record by filing D.B.Civil Second Stay Application No.3825/2012, but as the matters were in the process of being finally heard, no interim relief of keeping those in abeyance was passed. The applicants/writ petitioners have categorically pleaded that they did not submit any option to join government job under the Rules, and as a matter of fact, did not join the same. They stated further that their writ petition, alongwith others, in a batch, was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.4.2013 holding thus:- ". . . . . The transition of a majority of the teaching and non-teaching staff to the Government service under the Rules, 2010, by itself, does not in our estimate warrant and justify withdrawal of the grant to all the institutions as a whole. Thus, exposing these, not only to the risk of the closure in absence of Government patronage but also pushing the continuing teaching and non-teaching staff, though minimal to a state of dolorous uncertainty in life. The possibility of withdrawal of Govt. vigil and interventions consequent upon total withdrawal of the grant also, cannot be ruled out in view of certain provisions indicative thereof. The apprehension of the petitioners that in such a case, existing teaching and non-teaching staff would be left at the mercy of the management of their institutions, thus, cannot be lightly brushed aside. The consequential adverse impact on the quality of teaching and education, is also a potent probability. On an overall consideration of the above, we are thus of the unhesitant opinion that though the withdrawal of the grant in aid by the Government vis a vis the posts, that have fallen vacant on the abandonment thereof by the incumbents, who had opted for Government service under the Rules, 2010, cannot be faulted with. Discontinuance of the grant as a whole cannot receive judicial imprimatur. To this extent, the impugned decision cannot be sustained. Though, such aid, as the Act, 1989 per se proclaims cannot be claimed as a matter of right, in view of the constituent provisions thereof catering to the objectives sought to be achieved by it, the discretion of the State Government to discontinue or withdraw the same, cannot be exercised in a manner antithetical thereto. The administrative communications dt.13.12.2011, 27.12.2011, 28.12.2011, 29.12.2011 and those of the institutions dt.3.1.2012 and 4.1.2012, in substance, reiterate the same ground of discontinuance of grant in aid namely the election of majority of teaching and non-teaching staff for the Government service and non-viability of payment of the earlier salary and consequential continuance of service thereat. . . . . . In the backdrop of the above, the impugned amendment to Section 7(1) of the Act, 1989 and the Rules, 2010 is, therefore, negated. However, the action of the Government in withdrawing the grant, so far as it relates to the posts in which the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Non-Government aided educational institutions are still continuing, is adjudged to be illegal and ultravires of the Act, 1989. The impugned communications dt.13.12.2011, 27.12.2011, 28.12.2011, 29.12.2011 and those of the institutions dt.3.1.2012 and 4.1.2012, stand interfered with to this extent. The State respondents are hereby directed to undertake an exercise in association with the management of the concerned non-Government Educational institutions hitherto receiving the grant under the Act, 1989 to work out the category and extent of grant in aid, as would be essential to secure the service conditions of such existing teaching and non-teaching staff as contemplated by the enactment and release the same. It is made clear that this direction would be strictly confined to the existing teaching and non-teaching staff of such institutions as on date and the benefit thereof would not be extended to those, who have meanwhile opted for the Government service under the Rules, 2010 and also to the posts so abandoned, and to which, if in the meantime, any induction has been made on the terms and conditions ascribed by the management of the concerned institutions."
(3.) The applicants/writ petitioners have stated that it is thus apparent from the decision rendered that grant-in-aid could not be withdrawn for the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Non-Government aided educational institutions only on the premise that majority of the teachers/lecturers working on aided or sanctioned posts in such institutions have joined the government service under the Rules, and that, it could not be withdrawn for those lecturers/teachers, who had been working on sanctioned post and had not joined the government job. While quashing the consequential termination orders vis-a-vis the teachers/lecturers, who had been working on sanctioned or aided post but had not joined the government job under the Rules, their orders dated 26.3.2012 were however not annuled. It is in this backdrop that the instant application has been filed, seeking a clarification that as a corollary of the adjudication made, orders of termination of persons, who had either not opted for or had opted under the court orders, but had not joined the government job under the Rules would similarly stand quashed.;