ASHOK PARIHAR, J. - (1.) SINCE on similar of facts, the common order passed by the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge are under challenge, both the appeals have been heard together and are been decided by this common order.
(2.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we have very carefully gone through the material on record. The matter appears to have a chequered history. The respondents concerned employees have been working on different posts with the appellant -institution. The concerned employees along with some other employees preferred writ petitions before this Court claiming parity of pay sale with that of employees of State Government as prescribed by the University concerned. As many as five writ petitions came to be disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 20th August, 1996. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court on 20th August, 1996 is reproduced as under: I consider it appropriate that the petitioners may submit a representation to the University within a period of 15 days from today with reference to the provisions of Section 29 of the University Act The University will examine the matter and if there is any violation would take action in accordance with law. The representation shall be decided by the Vice Chancellor, within a period of three months from the date of submission.
(3.) IT appears only three concerned employees preferred representations before the Vice Chancellor. As per directions of this Court, the representations were decided by the Vice -Chancellor vide order dated 16.12.1996. The Vice -Chancellor was of the opinion that since there has been no regular appointment after due selection in accordance with proper procedure, the concerned -employees were not entitled for the pay scale as claimed by them. The appellant -institution had also been directed to duly advertise the vacancies in question and fill up the same in accordance with law. In case of non -compliance of directions issued by the Vice -Chancellor, the Institution was liable to be de -recognized or even the affiliation could be withdrawn. the order dated 16.12.1996 passed by the Vice -Chancellor was also communicated to the appellant -institution with the directions to submit the compliance report. It was only after passing of order by the Vice -Chancellor as per directions of this Hon'ble Court as referred above, the services of the concerned employees were terminated vide order dated 31.5.1997.;