SHARMA, J. - (1.) SMB Society, appellant herein, though seeks to set aside the impugned order of learned Single Judge on various grounds, the main point that has been canvassed is that the order reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can by its silence render it virtually impossible for this Division Bench to perform the appellant's function in adjudging the validity of the order.
(2.) HAVING closely weighed the impugned order we find no substance in this submission that the order is non-speaking and non-reasoned. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant society by making following observations:- " There is no substance in the writ petition. The order of the tribunal is well reasoned and is passed in accordance with law and the same does not require any interference by this court. The tribunal has rightly reached to the conclusion that there is non compliance of the mandatory requirement of section 18 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989". The guidelines as to the speaking order have been indicated by the Supreme Court in Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf vs. New Education Institute (AIR 1996 SC 2105) thus:- " It is not, however, necessary that the order disposing of a writ petition or of a cause must be a lengthy one recording in detail all the reasons that played in the mind of the court in coming to the decision. What is imperative is that the order must in a nutshell record the relevant reasons which were taken into consideration by the Court in coming to its final conclusions and in disposing of the petition or the cause by making the order, thereby enabling both the party seeking justice as well as the superior Court where an appeal lies to know the mind of the Court as well as the reasons for its finding on questions of law and facts in deciding the said petition of cause. " Coming to the facts of the instant matter we notice that the respondent No. 5 (employee) was appointed as Teacher Gr. III with effect from July 1, 1981 on ad hoc basis by the appellant Society. Because of abolition of posts without the prior approval of the Director Education Department the services of the employee were terminated vide order dated May 15, 1993 by the Society. The employee assailed the order by filing appeal before the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur for shot `tribunal' ). Learned Tribunal on the ground that the Society has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short `1989 Act') allowed the appeal of the employee and quashed the order of termination of the employee with continuity of service. The order of the learned Tribunal dated May 13, 1994 was challenged by the Society by filing the writ petition, which was dismissed as indicated herein above. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that because of abolition of posts there was no necessity of prior approval of the authority, therefore the impugned orders of learned Tribunal as well as of learned Single Judge are liable to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed on Arun Mohadeorao Damka vs. Additional Inspector General of Police (AIR 1966 SC 1497), MMRDA Officers Association Kedarnath Rao Ghorpade vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (2005) 2 SCC 235, N Ramanatha Pillai vs. The State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 2641), Ram Narain Sons Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Sales Tax (AIR 1955 SC 765), Abdul Jafar Butt vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1957 SC 281) and Dwarka Prasad vs. Dwarka Das Saraf (AIR 1975 SC 1758 ).
(3.) A look at section 18 of the 1989 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. As per 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. Since the proviso (iii) of Section 18 of 1989 Act has not been followed in letter and spirit by the Institution in terminating the services of the employee, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of learned Single Judge. The Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution has been rightly exercised by the learned Single Judge. 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 co 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. " We find ourselves unable to accept the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that because of abolition of posts the provisions contained in Section 18 of 1989 Act were not applicable. We are of the view that the provisions contained in Section 18 of 1989 Act are mandatory and it was incumbent on the appellant Society to follow the same. ;