JUDGMENT 1. - Question, for adjudication, involved in above noted writ petitioners is one and the same and, therefore, they are heard together and being decided by this common order. 2. Petitioner No. 2-Army Welfare Education Society (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'petitioner Society') is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Committee of Dy.G.O.C. Army School, Station Road, HQ, Kota. 3. Respondents Manju Bhatnagar (in Petition No. 3906/2001) was appointed as Lab Assistant in the petitioner's School and was confirmed on the post on 23.11.1995. She was dismissed from service by order dated 20th August, 1997. Respondent Mamta Rani Pathak (in Petition No. 3905/2001) was appointed as Librarian and was confirmed on the post on 23.11.1995. She was dismissed from service by order dated 20.8.1997. Respondent Pushpa Sharma (in Petition No. 3904/2001) was appointed on the post of Teacher and was confirmed on 1.7.1992. She was dismissed from service on 2.9.1997. Respondent Ila Bose (in Petition No. 3907/2001) was appointed as Music Teacher and was confirmed on 16.12.1994. She was dismissed from service on 26.8.1997. Respondent Snehlata Sharma (in Petition No. 3778/2001) was appointed as a Primary Teacher in Hindi Subject and she was dismissed from service by order dated 20.8.1997. 4. The respondents challenged the orders of dismissal of their services by way of filing separate appeals before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Tribunal') and the Tribunal by its common order dated 6.6.2001 allowed the appeals setting aside the orders of dismissal of the services of the respondents with continuity of their services and all service benefits. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.6.2001 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner Society has filed the above noted writ petitions. 5. As per the petitioners, the petitioner Society is being constituted with the aims and objects amongst others, to create and develop the educational and technical training facilities at military stations to meet the needs of children of Army personnel including ex- service men. The petitioner Society has its general body and Board of governors exclusively consists of the Ex. Officio Officials of the Indian Army. It has framed Rules and Regulations for Army Welfare Education Society Institutions. The petitioner Society has established various Army Schools within the territory of India. The petitioner Society has its general body and Board of governors exclusively consists of the Ex. Officio Officials of the Indian Army. It has framed Rules and Regulations for Army Welfare Education Society Institutions. The petitioner Society has established various Army Schools within the territory of India. The recognition has been obtained by those Schools from the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi for examinations and Degree awarded to the students. For day to day administration of the said Schools, Managing Committees have been formed; composition, functions, powers and responsibilities of which are given in Chapter- 3 of the Rules. As per the petitioners, the petitioner Society is not recognised Institution within the meaning of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal exercising the powers under the Act of 1989 is without any authority or jurisdiction. 6. The Tribunal while setting aside the order of dismissal has held that before dismissal of the respondents, no opportunity was given to them of being heard against the action proposed to be taken, neither a prior approval of the Director of Education or an Officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained for dismissal of the services of the respondents. It is further held that the respondents were not even given six months notice or the salary in lieu thereof before dismissal of their services nor the consent of the Director of Education was obtained in writing. 7. Section 18 of the Act of 1989 requires that if an employee of a recognised institution is removed, dismissed or reduced in rank, it shall be incumbent upon the management of that Institution to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed action, to the employee. It further requires that no final order shall be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education or an Officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained. It further requires that no final order shall be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education or an Officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained. Admittedly, no such steps were taken by the petitioner Society before dismissing the respondents, Proviso (iii) of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 permits the Managing Committee to terminate the services of an employee without following the aforesaid procedure, where the Management 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 can be terminated but such termination can only be affected by either giving the employee six months notice or the salary in lieu thereof. There is a further rider added that before such termination order can be issued, the petitioner Society is required to obtain consent of the Director of Education in writing. Admittedly, no such steps have been taken by the petitioner Society before dismissing the respondents from service. Therefore, the decision arrived at by the Tribunal that the dismissal from the services of the respondents is contrary to the provisions of Section 18, is in accordance with law if I hold that the petitioner Society is a recognised institution within the meaning of the Act of 1989 and thus is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1989. 8. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner Society is not a recognised institution and, therefore, provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 do not govern the field nor the Tribunal has any authority to adjudicate upon the matter and pass the impugned order. Submission of the counsel for the petitioners is based mainly on the interpretation of Section 2(q) of the Act of 1989. 9. It would be profitable to note the relevant provisions of the Act of 1989 at the threshold itself. 10. Section 2 (c) which defines the Board reads as under : 'Board' means the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and shall include the Council for the Indian School, Certificate Examination;" 11. 9. It would be profitable to note the relevant provisions of the Act of 1989 at the threshold itself. 10. Section 2 (c) which defines the Board reads as under : 'Board' means the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and shall include the Council for the Indian School, Certificate Examination;" 11. Section 2(p), which defines the non-Government educational institution, reads as under : "non-Government educational institution" means any college school, training institute or any other institution, by whatever name designated, established and run with the object of impairing education or preparing or training students for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma or any academic distinction recognised by the State or Central Government or functioning for the educational, cultural or physical development or the people in the State and which is neither owned nor managed by the State or Central Government or by any University or local authority or other authority owned or controlled by the State or Central Government;" 12. Section 2 (q), which defines recognised institution, reads as under : "recognised institution' means a non-Government educational institution affiliated to any University or recognised by the Board, Director of Education or any officer authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf; 13. Section 3 provides as to how the recognition of the institutions has to be obtained, which reads as under : "3. Recognition of institutions-(1) Except in the case of institution affiliated to a University or recognised or to be recognised by the Board, the Competent Authority may, on an application made to it in the prescribed form and manner recognise a non-Government educational institution on fulfilment of such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. 14. Provided that no institution shall be recognised unless it is registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. (2) Every application for recognition of an institution shall be entertained and considered by the Competent Authority and the decision thereon shall be communicated to the applicant within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the application and, where recognition is refused, the reasons therefor shall also be communicated to the applicant within the said period.' 15. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that to be a recognised institution it is necessary that a non-Government educational institution should be affiliated to the University or recognised or to. be recognised by the Board, and by the Director of Education or any officer authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf. Therefore, as per the learned counsel for the petitioners unless a non- Government educational institution is affiliated either to the University or recognised by the Board with further recognition by the Director of Education or any officer authorised by the State Government or by the Director of Education in that behalf, the non-Government educational institution shall not be a recognised institution. 16. Under the Act, non-Government educational institution is a college, school training institute or any other institution established with the object of imparting education or preparing or training students for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma or any academic distinction recognised by the State or Central Government or functioning for the educational, cultural or physical development of the people in the State and which is neither owned nor managed by the State or Central Government or by any University or local authority or other authority owned or controlled by the State or Central Government. But, all non-Government educational institutions will not be recognised institutions unless they are affiliated to any University or recognised by the Board or the Director of Education or any officer authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in that behalf. Under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1989 the 'Board' would be the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and shall include the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations. The Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi being included in the definition of 'Board', the recognition by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi would be a recognition by the Board within the meaning of Clause (q) of Section 2 of the Act of 1989. 17. Question really is whether the recognition of a non- Government educational institution is further required to be recognised by the Director of Education or any officer authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in that behalf. 17. Question really is whether the recognition of a non- Government educational institution is further required to be recognised by the Director of Education or any officer authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in that behalf. Section 3 of the Act of 1989 makes the position clear which provides a procedure for recognition of the institutions and which says that except in the case of institutions affiliation to a University or recognised or to he recognised by the Board, the other non-Government educational institution has to make an application for recognition before the Competent Authority in the prescribed form in the manner provided to be recognised as an educational institution. The proviso to Section 3 further says that no institution shall be recognised unless it is registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. As per Section 3, education institutions affiliated to the University or recognised by the Board need not apply for recognition, whereas the application for recognition has to be made by the non-Government educational institution when the institution is not affiliated to the University or is not recognised by the Board. Thus, under Section 3 the non-Government educational institutions which are affiliated to the University or recognised by the Board shall be recognised institutions whereas all other institutions will become recognised institutions after the competent authority grants permission to that effect. Section 3 does not require that the non-Government educational institution which is recognised by the Board is further to be recognised by the Director of Education or by any other officer authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf. 18. All non-Government educational institutions are not required to be affiliated by the University or recognised by the Board for recognition of degrees, diploma or certificate issued by the institutions, but for those institutions, to be recognised institutions under the Act requirement is recognition by the Director of Education or by any other Officer authorised in that behalf by the State Government or by the Director of Education. 'Director of Education' is defined under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1989 which is as under : "(f) 'Director of Education' means; (i) in relation to degree and post-graduate colleges and educational institutions of equal or higher studies other than institutions of Sanskrit and technical education, the Director of College Education, Rajasthan. 'Director of Education' is defined under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1989 which is as under : "(f) 'Director of Education' means; (i) in relation to degree and post-graduate colleges and educational institutions of equal or higher studies other than institutions of Sanskrit and technical education, the Director of College Education, Rajasthan. (ii) in relation to the institutions of Sanskrit education, the Director of Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan; (iii) in relation to the institutions of technical education, the Director of Technical Education, Rajasthan; (iv) in relation to schools and institutions other than those referred to in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) the Director of Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan. Explanation-The Director of Education shall include any other officer authorised by him to perform all or any of the functions of the Director of Education under this Act. 19. The above definition shows that their are different Directors of Education for different courses, who have been authorised to recognise non-Government educational institutions, which are not, or are not required to be affiliated to the University or recognised by the Board. The power of Director of Education to recognise non- Government educational institutions is not dependent to that the affiliation by the University or recognition by the Board. 20. On a plain reading of definition of recognised institutions with other provisions of the Act, it would be clear that all non-Government educational institutions which are either affiliated by the University or recognised by the Board or recognised by the Director of Education or by any Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf shall be recognised institutions. There is no requirement that after recognition by the Board, a further recognition is required by the Director of Education or any other Officer authorised by the State Government. 21. In the present case the petitioner Society having been recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, it shall be a recognised institution. Once the petitioner Society is a recognised institution, the provisions of the Act of 1989 inclusive of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 applies with full force to the petitioner Society it being a recognised institution. When the petitioner Society has not complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the action of dismissal against the respondents has rightly been set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 6.6.2001. 22. When the petitioner Society has not complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the action of dismissal against the respondents has rightly been set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 6.6.2001. 22. Consequently, all the petitions are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition dismissed. *******