Prem Shanker Asopa, J. - (1.) SINCE common question of termination of the petitioners is involved in all these aforesaid writ petitions, hence, they have been heard together and are being decided together by this common order.
(2.) BY the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the common order dt. 23.08.2008 passed by the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby individual appeals filed by the petitioners under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act of 1989') have been dismissed and termination orders of respective petitioners have been upheld on the ground that the Management has a right to close down the Institution and the State Government cannot compel the Management to run the Institution. The brief facts of the case, as per the writ petitions, are that the respective petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1994 in Nehru Bal Mandir, managed by the Managing Committee, respondent No. 1. In the aforesaid Institution, primary education was being imparted. On 15.05.2008, a notice signed by the Secretary of the Nehru Bal Mandir Administrative Society was pasted on the outside wall of the school, which was addressed to the Commissioner, Elementary Education, Bikaner. In the said notice, it was stated that the Management was unable to run the Institution due to financial crisis and the Government could take over the school or allow them to close it down. It is stated in the writ petition that prior to taking the drastic action of closure of the school, new academic session 2008 -2009 had already started from 30.04.2008 and it was wrong on the part of the Management to state that the Institution was closed on the last day of the session 2007 -2008. It is further stated in the writ petition that the District Education Officer, Jhunjhunu also informed the Management that the Institution could not be closed abruptly in an illegal manner and it was intimated that the closure of the Institution without the approval of the Education Department was wrong and the Institution was to be responsible for consequential action. At this stage, the petitioners filed appeals under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal stayed operation of the impugned order dt. 15.05.2008 which continued till the decision of the appeals when the appeals were dismissed on 23.08.2009 on the ground that compliance of Section 14 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 10(v) of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institution (Recognition, Grant -in -aid and Service Condition etc.) Rules, 1993 (in short 'the Rules of 1993') has been made in true spirit, therefore, the closure of the Institution is valid and the employees have no right to seek compliance of other provisions of the Act of 1989 Section 18 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 for the reason that the consequential termination on account of closure stands on different footing from termination and dismissal during continuance of the Institution.
(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 filed separate replies. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have raised the preliminary objection regarding maintain -ability of the writ petitions and further elaborated the fact that on account of financial constraints resulting from reduction of strength of the students and other expenses, the Managing Committee unanimously decided to close down Nehru Bal Mandir.;