SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner/institution (for short `institution') appointed respondent employee Durga Shankar Sharma (for short `employee') on the post of Sr. Teacher (Maths) on December 29, 1992 for a period of one year. THE services were extended, therefore, the employee approached the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur (for short `the Tribunal') and in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal the employee was taken back in service. THEreafter the Institution placed the employee under suspension and on the basis of departmental enquiry the services of the employee were terminated vide order dated August 10, 2001. THE order was challenged by the employee before the Tribunal by filing appeal under section 19 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short `act' ). Learned Tribunal vide judgment dated June 7, 2003 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated August 10, 2001 and reinstated the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. This order of the learned Tribunal is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the Institution that for the purpose of satisfying the mandate of section 18 (3) of the Act, the letter dated March 20, 2001 was sent to Director Education Thereafter the District Education Officer appointed the Principal as Enquiry Officer on May 28, 2001. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted its report on June 11, 2001 whereby the charges were found proved against the employee. As such the consent was not required to be sought. Vide circular dated July 9, 1998 the State Government did provide for deemed approval by indicating that if within thirty days no reply from the Director is received, it shall be presumed that the approval has been given to the proposal of dismissal/termination of the concerned employee. The contention raised on behalf of the Institution is devoid of merit. Section 18 of the Act and the rules made thereunder provide that no employee of the recognised Institution shall be removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken. The proviso (iii), Section 18 shall not apply where the managing committee is of unanimous opinion that the services of an employee cannot be continued without prejudice to the interest of the institution, the services of such employee are terminated after giving him six months notice or salary in lieu thereof and the consent of the Director of Education is obtained in writing. Evidently proviso (iii) provides that consent of the Director of Education is required to be obtained in writing. This proviso does not indicate about the deemed approval. The State Government could not have flouted the mandate of proviso (iii) by issuing Circular dated July 9, 1998. This court in Nehru Bal Vatika Vidyalaya vs. State of Rajasthan (2001 (3) WLC (Raj.) 228) observed that the State Authorities had no jurisdiction to pass any executive instructions or issue any circular to the effect that if the approval is not received within 30 days it would amount to deemed approval. Since the Institution flouted the mandate of Section 18 of the Act, the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal of the employee, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. In my considered opinion learned Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and in the facts and circumstances of the case the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not required to be invoked. In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2003) 3 SCC 524, Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 7 indicated thus:- " The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts 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 error of law in the decision. " For these reasons the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The Institution shall ensure compliance of the Tribunal's order dated June 7, 2003 within thirty days from today. There shall be no order as to costs. . ;