JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, educational institution is challenging the order dated- October 18, 1994 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short referred to as 'the Tribunal'). By this impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Teacher-respondent No. 1 whereby the order dated-15.5.93 terminating his service was set aside with further direction to reinstate him in service with back wages and other allowances. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, some necessary facts may be stated which are not much in dispute. The respondent Teacher was given appointment on the post of Science Teacher w.e.f. 25.7.92 for a period of three months upto 25.10.92 on a consolidated salary of As. 1900/- per month inclusive of all allowances vide appointment letter dated, 22.7.92 (Annex. 1). In the letter it was also stated that the appointment was purely on adhoc -basis and terminable at any time without assigning any reason by one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof by the Management. It was also stated that appointment will automatically come to an end on the last day of session. Thereafter, the period was extended from time to time and ultimately the Teacher's service was terminated from 15th May 1993, being the last day of academic session. The Teacher challenged his termination order by preferring an appeal before the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, but after constitution of the Tribunal in terms of Section 21(2) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational ,Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act'), the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, asked the Teacher to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Teacher preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated, 18.10.1994. Before the Tribunal, the plea of the Teaches was that service was terminated without giving one month's prior notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof by the Management and that the Management did not obtain prior permission of the Director, Education Department. It was also pleaded inter-alia that he was not given any opportunity of bring heard before his removal from service and that the Management has given appointment subsequently to the Teachers who are junior in service. It was also pleaded inter-alia that he was not given any opportunity of bring heard before his removal from service and that the Management has given appointment subsequently to the Teachers who are junior in service. The name of Miss Sudha Mathur was given in this connection. The Tribunal accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the Teacher and allowed the appeal. 3. The contention of Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Management, is that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on ad hoc basis as a measure of stop-gap arrangement and it was terminable without any notice. Learned counsel contended that in the appointment letter itself, it was made clear that the appointment will automatically come to an end on the last day of session and 15th May, 1993 being the last day of the session, the service of the Teacher automatically came to an end by efflux of time. It was also contended that appointments do not confer any right on the appointees to continue on the post or for a regular appointment to such posts. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Purshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 ; Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava (S.C.), 1992 (81) FJR 565 , Sant Ram Bhai v. State of Haryana (P & H), 1993 (66) FLR 86 , P. Ramchandran v. Kolacherry Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam and others, 1993 (82) FJR 485 . 4. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. As stated earlier, the facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondent Teacher was given appointment on ad hoc basis at commencement of the academic session and it was terminated before summer vacations i.e. on the last working day of the academic session. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has worked for more than six months before his service was terminated, though his initial appointment was only for three months. It is also riot in dispute that the Management did not give one month's prior notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. The respondent Teacher was also not afforded any opportunity of hearing before terminating his service, that his work was not upto the mark or he was negligent in performing his duties. 5. It is also riot in dispute that the Management did not give one month's prior notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. The respondent Teacher was also not afforded any opportunity of hearing before terminating his service, that his work was not upto the mark or he was negligent in performing his duties. 5. In Rattan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 478 strongly depreciated the policy of the State Government making appointment of Teachers on ad hoc basis at commencement of the year and terminated their service before summer vacations, thus denying them the salary and allowance for the period of summer vacations by resorting to fictional breaks. But, still the contention of the learned counsel for the Management is right that circumstances may arise necessitating the appointment on ad hoc basis. It may be on account of the absence of necessary rules or non-availability of incumbents through due process of selection involving time and the exigencies of service may not allow the posts unmanned. There is also no qurrel with the proposition of law that an ad hoc appointee purely on contractual basis, in absence of any statutory Act or the Rules governing service conditions, has no right to continue on the post. Such appointment does not confer any right on him for regular appointment to such post and it is terminable without assigning any reason. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner lay down the same proposition of law. However, in the instant case, the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, regulate service conditions of an employee. 6. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (Act No. 19 of 1992) is a social legislation to provide for better organisation and development of education in the non-government educational institutions in the State of Rajasthan. It is also intended to check various mal-practices and mischiefs which were being committed by some unscrupulous Managements of non- Government educational institutions, qua their teachers and employees. The Teachers and other employees of such institutions have been victims of arbitrary hiring and firing policy of the management as they used to adopt the policy of ad-hocism. Such Managements followed the policy of ad-hoc is in appointing teachers who constituted the bulk of the educated un-employed persons. The Teachers and other employees of such institutions have been victims of arbitrary hiring and firing policy of the management as they used to adopt the policy of ad-hocism. Such Managements followed the policy of ad-hoc is in appointing teachers who constituted the bulk of the educated un-employed persons. The teachers and other employees were compelled to accept these jobs on adhoc basis with miserable conditions of service as they had no option. The various provisions contained in the Act now provide sufficient safeguards against such arbitrary action of the Management. Chapter-VI of the Act under the head "Conditions of Service and Tribunal" contains regulatory provisions relating to the terms and conditions of employment of aided institutions in the State. Section-16 empowers the State Government to regulate the terms and conditions of employment. Section-17 provides that recruitment of employees in a recognised institution shall be made either after open advertisement in the local daily newspaper or from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange in the manner as may be prescribed. Then, Section-18 deals with 'removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees. For our purposes Section 18 is relevant and it is reproduced in extenso as under : "S. 18. Then, Section-18 deals with 'removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees. For our purposes Section 18 is relevant and it is reproduced in extenso as under : "S. 18. Removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees : Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, no employee of a recognised institution shall be removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given by the management a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken; Provided that no final order in this regard shall be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained : Provided further that this section shall not apply : (i) to a person who is dismissed or removed on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) where it is not practicable or expedient to give that employee an opportunity of showing cause, the consent of Director of Education has been obtained in writing before the action is taken, or (iii) 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. It will be also relevant to reproduce rule-39 which reads as under : Rule 39-Removal or dismissal from Service : (1) The services of an employee appointed temporary for six months, may be terminated by the management at any time after giving at least one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. Temporary employee, who wishes to resign shall also give at least one month's notice in advance or in lieu thereof deposit or surrender one month's salary to the management. Temporary employee, who wishes to resign shall also give at least one month's notice in advance or in lieu thereof deposit or surrender one month's salary to the management. (2) An employee, other than the employee referred to in sub-rule (1), may be removed or dismissed from service on the grounds of insubordination, inefficiency, neglect of duty, misconduct or any other grounds which makes the employee unsuitable for further retention in service." A combined reading of Section 18 and rule-39 will make it evidently clear that in case of temporary employee appointed for six months, his service can be terminated by the Management at any time after giving least one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. The first proviso of Section 18 also requires that no final order in regard to removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees shall be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education or officer authorised in this behalf has been obtained. It is true that in case of removal of an employee appointed temporarily for six months, an opportunity of being heard shall not be required as turns out from rule 39(1) of the Rules. However, the first proviso to Section 18 which required approval of the Director Education or an Officer authorised by him in this behalf, applies to all removals, dismissal or re-education in rank of employees and it covers even the temporary employees. The whole purpose behind the above provisions is to check arbitrary action on the part of unscrupulous Management of educational institutions. The language of rule-39 and Section 18 being plain and clear admits of no other interpretation. In my view, the view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It may be stated here that both the Act and the Rules were in force when the order terminating service of the petitioner was passed.Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. *******