Honble SHARMA, J.–The petitioners are Managing Committee and Secretary of Tagore Vidya Bhawan, a registered society which runs as many as eleven educational institutions at Jaipur. In the meeting of Managing Committee held on December 5, 1998 a decision was taken keeping in view the gradually decrease in the number of students, to abolish the surplus posts of teachers which were assessed as twenty. In pursuance to the said decision services of 20 teachers were ordered to be dispensed with effect from December 11, 1998. The affected teachers filed appeals before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur (for short the Tribunal) assailing the order dated December 5, 1998. Learned Tribunal vide its order dated June 30, 1999 allowed the appeals and set aside the order dated December 5, 1998. All the affected 20 teachers were asked to be reinstated in the service with all consequential benefits and Director of Education (respondent No.2) was directed to ensure compliance of the Tribunals order. Against this order of the Tribunal that the present action for filing the writ petition has been resorted to by the petitioners. (2). It was canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that the Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction and recorded perverse findings which has resulted in glaring injustice. Impugned order is illegal and unsustainable being based on extraneous material and against the provisions contained in Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act 1989 (for short 1989 Act) and Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules 1993 (for short the 1993 Rules). Tagore Vidya Bhawan is unaided institution w.e.f. April 1, 1998 and no approval was required to be obtained from Director of Education as the decision of the Managing Committee and consequential orders were not under the provisions of Section 18 of the 1989 Act or Rule 39 of 1993 Rules. On account of abolition of the excess posts if the services of excess staff or employee is dispensed with, that does not tantamount to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. No adverse inference could be drawn by the Tribunal against the Secretary of the institution as he could not appear in person before the Tribunal for cross examination on account of ailment. Tribunal drew unwarranted inference that the services of the teachers were terminated under section 18 or Rule 39 on the basis of payment of six months salary. No adverse inference could be drawn by the Tribunal against the Secretary of the institution as he could not appear in person before the Tribunal for cross examination on account of ailment. Tribunal drew unwarranted inference that the services of the teachers were terminated under section 18 or Rule 39 on the basis of payment of six months salary. Reliance was placed on Rafiq Ahmed vs. State of Rajasthan (1), N. Ramanatha vs. State of Kerala (2), M.S. Loganathan vs. Chairman (Mad.) (3), Dr. Rash Lal Yadav vs. State of Bihar (4), Maheshwari Sr. Hr. Sec. School vs. Bhika Ram Sharma (5) and Alka vs. State of Raj. (6). (3). On behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, it was contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Provisions contained in Section 18 or Rule 39 have been rightly interpreted. (4). I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. (5). 1989 Act was enacted to provide for better organisation and development of education in the Non-Government Educational Institutions in the State of Rajasthan. Clause (iii) of Second proviso of Section 18 of 1989 Act provides that where the Managing Committee is of unanimous opinion that the services of an employee can not be contained 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. Exactly the same words have been incorporated in proviso (iii) of Rule 39(2) of 1993 Rules. (6). In Rafiq Ahmed vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that bonafide decision taken after due application of mind by appointing an expert committee, cannot be directed to be discontinued. (7). In N. Ramanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala and another (supra) it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the abolition of the posts may have the consequence of termination of service; but such termination is not dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 because both in case of dismissal and removal there is a stigma. The abolition of post is not a personal penalty against the Government servant. The abolition of post is not a personal penalty against the Government servant. Therefore, the opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal or removal does not arise in the case of abolition of post. Nor does it confer on the person any right to hold the post after it is abolished or to any other employment. (8). The same principles have been reiterated in M.S. Loganathan vs. Chairman (Mad.) (supra), Dr. Rash Lal Yadav vs. State of Bihar (supra), Maheshwari Sr. Hr. Sec. School vs. Bhika Ram Sharma (supra), and Alka vs. State of Raj. (supra). (9). The question which was for determination is whether the petitioners have a right to abolish the posts of 20 teachers. (10). As already stated, clause (iii) of second proviso of Section 18 of 1989 Act, provides that the Managing Committee of institution is of unanimous opinion that services of an employee cannot be continued without prejudice to the interest of the institution, the services of such employee can be 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 is thus evidence that Managing Committee of Institution can terminate the services of employee in the interest of institution and for this purpose the Managing Committee has to either serve six months notice on the employee or to pay six months salary in lieu thereof but the consent of the Director of Education must have been obtained in writing. (11). It is difficult to agree with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the provisions contained in Section 18 of the 1989 Act are not applicable in the instant case as Tagore Vidya Bhawan is not an aided institution. A look at section 18 demonstrates that it applies to recognised institutions and to aided institutions. Admittedly Tagore Vidya Bhawan is a recognised institution. It is not disputed that the petitioners have paid six months salary to the teachers whose services were dispensed with. In my considered opinion before dispensing with the services of the teachers written consent of Director of Education ought to have been obtained in view of clause (iii) of second proviso of Section 18 of the 1989 Act. (12). It is not disputed that the petitioners have paid six months salary to the teachers whose services were dispensed with. In my considered opinion before dispensing with the services of the teachers written consent of Director of Education ought to have been obtained in view of clause (iii) of second proviso of Section 18 of the 1989 Act. (12). My attention has been drawn towards clause (5) of Schedule II appended to the 1993 Rules and an attempt was made to establish that the services of the teachers were dispensed with in the interest of administrative and financial considerations of the institution and the decision of the Managing Committee was based on administrative and financial considerations. Undeniably the petitioners had a right in the interest of administration of institution to create or abolish the posts of the teachers but for this purpose they had to follow the mate of clause (iii) of second proviso to section 18 of 1989 Act in letter and spirit. (13). The impugned order of the learned Tribunal, in my opinion is well reasoned order. It runs in as many as 27 pages and I do not see any illegality in the said order. I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the Tribunal is based on extraneous material. (14). For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.