Judgment:
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.
3. 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.
4. 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issued by the Vice-Chancellor, the Institution was liable to be de-recognized or even the affiliation could be withdrawn.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.
5. The termination order came to be challenged by the respondent-employees before the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, as per the directions of the Vice-Chancellor, an advertisement had also been issued by the appellant-institution on 29.4.1997 for selection to all the posts vacant including that one in question. A writ petition further again came to be filed on 11.5.1997 claiming parity of pay scale with that of employees of the State Government. The advertisement dated 29.4.1997 had also been challenged in the above writ petition. Though initially exparte interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge in the above writ petition on 19.6.1997, restraining the appellants from making fresh appointment as per the advertisement issued, however, the interim order passed on 19.6.1967 was vacated by the learned Single Judge on 18.9.1997. The writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed by this Court on 30th August, 2007 on the ground of pendency of the present appeals.
6. The appeals filed against the order of termination dated 31st May, 1997 were allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 31st July, 1999. While setting aside the termination orders, the concerned employees were directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The order of the Tribunal-dated 31.8.1999 have further been affirmed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.1.2000. It may also be pertinent to note here that for claiming parity in pay scales one of the respondent-employees earlier had also approached the Tribunal by way of filing an appeal. However, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.8.1996. The order of the Tribunal dated 24.8.1996 never came to be challenged by the concerned employee any further.
7. Though all the above facts had been we placed on record, however, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitioners filed by the present appellants challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 31st July, 1999 only on the ground of violation of Section 18 and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and the Rules made there under. As is evident from the documents, the termination orders were passed as per directions issued by the Vice-chancellor in view of observation made by this Court. The order of Vice-Chancellor has however not been challenged before this Court. Facing withdrawal of affiliation, the appellant-institution was bound to comply with the direction, issued by the Vice-Chancellor. Even at the time of challenging the advertisement issued by the appellant-institution in pursuance to the directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor, the order of Vice-Chancellor passed on 16.12.1996 had not been challenged by the concerned employees before this Court in the earlier writ petition as referred above. The Tribunal had referred the order of the Vice-Chancellor in a very cursory manner whereas the learned Single Judge has not referred the earlier directions of this Court as also the order of Vice-Chancellor at all. Since whole action has been taken by the appellant-institution as per orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor as per directions of this Court, in our opinion both the orders passed by the Tribunal as also learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
8. Having considering the entire facts and circumstances, the whole action has been taken by the appellant-institution in pursuance to the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor as per directions of this Court, the compliance of Section 18 and Rule 39 was not required to be made. Moreso, on the face of it there appears to be a case of misrepresentation and concealment by the concerned employees by seeking different remedies before different forums at the same time without disclosing the earlier litigation in either petition.
9. Accordingly the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10.1.2001 passed by learned Single Judge as also the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The appeals filed by the concerned employees before the Tribunal stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs,