Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present writ petitions have been filed by the Bhartiya Lok Kala Mandal, Udaipur, a Society registered under the Socities Registration Act, against the impugned orders Annexure -1 dated 19.06.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur by which, the application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 ('the Act of 1989') and the Rules of 1993 filed by the respective applicant (respondent herein) Jai Prakash Vyas namely, Application No. 279/2011 came to be allowed, whereby the learned Tribunal quashed the impugned orders passed by the petitioner Mandal on 07.10.2011 prematurely retiring the applicant Jai Prakash Vyas from the post of Lok Kala Trainer. The facts are illustratively taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6289/2014 Bhartiya Lok Kala Mandal & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash Vyas & Ors.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mandal Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit urged the common issue involved in all these writ petitions that the said Tribunal constituted under Section 22 of the Act of 1989 did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the service matter of the applicant since the petitioner Bhartiya Lok Kala Mandal was neither a "Non -Government Educational Institution" as defined in Section 2(p) of the Act of 1989 nor a "Recognised Institution" as defined in Section 2(q) of the Act of 1989 and, therefore, the said Tribunal has erred in rejecting the preliminary objection of the petitioner raised about the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal before it by the impugned order and, therefore, the issue of jurisdiction of the said Tribunal deserves to be examined by this Court and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Pramendra Bohra supported the impugned order dated Annexure -1 dated 19.06.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur and he also submitted that from the facts as stated in the impugned order, it is clear that there was no application of the applicant Jai Prakash Vyas seeking voluntary retirement from the services of the petitioner and the respondent Jai Prakash Vyas was forcibly retired from the services by the present petitioner at the age of 57 years, whereas the retirement age in the petitioner Mandal was 58 years at the relevant point of time.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record of the case including the impugned order Annexure -1 dated 19.06.2014 of the learned Tribunal, it cannot be said that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction in any manner. The definition of the "Non -Government Educational Institutions" as defined in Section 2(p) and (q), which are quoted herein below, are wide enough to cover the petitioner Mandal which is Society registered under the provisions of Indian Registration of Societies Act, 1860. Section 2(p) and (q) of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 are as under: - 2. Definitions -In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (p) "non -Government educational institution" means any college, school, training or any other institution, by whatever name designated or preparing or training students for obtaining any certification, degree, diploma or any academic distinction recognised by the State of Central Government or functioning for the educational, cultural or physical development of the people in the State and which is neither owned nor managed by the State or Central Government or by any University or local authority or other authority owned or controlled by the State or Central Government; (q) "recognised institution" means a non -Government educational institution affiliated to any University or recognised by the Board, Director of Education or any officer authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf;;