Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) ALL above writ petitions are filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 24.3.2005 passed by the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the appeals filed by the petitioners were partly allowed in the following manner:
(2.) AS per brief facts of the case, all the petitioners were appointed on the post of Teacher Grade -III by the respondent No. 1 after due selection and on completion of probation period, their services were confirmed.
(3.) THE respondent No. 1 Sindh Vidhya Mandir Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 1 -Samiti for short) is running a Senior Secondary School known as Nav Bharat Uchh Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Udaipur. The school was getting aid up to the extent of 80% from the State of Rajasthan and accordingly, all the petitioners were working on the aided posts but due to abolition of certain posts, the State Government withdrawn the aid and in compliance of said order for terminating the services of the petitioner on 11.1.2005, all the petitioners challenged the order of their termination by way of filing appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institution Tribunal Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989 for short) in which it was submitted that their termination is in violation of Section 18(3) of the Act of 1989 and rule 30 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institution (Recognition, Grand -in -aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1993 for short) because prior to terminating the services of the petitioners, no prior approval was obtained by the institution, in spite of fact that approval is mandatory in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the appeals were dismissed against the termination orders by the tribunal on the ground that a unanimous decision was taken by the administrative committee of the institution to terminate the services of the petitioners for the reason that the State Government stopped the aid and due to curtailment of aid the institution is suffering financial crises. The tribunal held that termination is not unconstitutional because a unanimous decision was taken by the institution.;