JUDGMENT 1. - As identical questions of law and fact are involved in these Writ Petitions, I propose to dispose them by a common order. 2. Services of the Employee-respondents (for short the 'employees') were terminated by the employer Petitioner (for short the 'employer') vide orders dated November 9, 2000. The employees preferred appeals against the said orders of termination before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur (for short the Tribunal). Learned Tribunal vide judgments dated January 10, 2002 allowed the appeals. The employer in the instant Writ Petitions seeks to quash these orders dated January 10, 2002 of the Tribunal. 3. Mr. A. K. Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate vociferously criticised the impugned orders and made following submissions : (i) The tribunal has committed serious breach of law in holding that the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act 1989 (for short 1989 Act) are applicable to the instant matters. Mayo College is not affiliated to University or any authority of the State Government. It is not a recognised institution as defined in section 2(q) of the 1989 Act. Even otherwise Mayo College has framed the Rules for its employees and they are governed by these rules. (ii) Alternatively without prejudice to the above, the termination orders were based on the unanimous opinion of the Committee as the continuance of the employees was prejudicial to the interest of the institution. The employees were paid three months salary as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Rules and Regulations of the Mayo College and thereafter salary of another three months was deposited in the Bank Account of the employees. Thus provisions contained in Section 18 of 1989 Act were fully complied with. (iii) Relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to the employees as the Employer has completely lost his confidence in the employees. 4. The case law on which reliance was placed shall be referred at appropriate juncture. 5. Per contra Mr. D.P. Sharma and Mrs. Anupama Chaturvedi supported the impugned judgments of the Tribunal and canvassed that provisions of Section 18 of 1989 Act are fully applicable to Mayo College and the orders of termination were rightly set aside by the Tribunal. 6. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions. Section 18 of 1989 Act relates to removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees. 6. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions. Section 18 of 1989 Act relates to removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees. It reads thus : "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 can not 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." "Recognised Institution" as defined under sub-section 2(q) of 1989 Act 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. As per Section 2(c) of 1989 Act '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. 7. From the material on record it is revealed that Mayo College is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. Thus it enters within the ambit of 'recognised institution' as defined under Section 2(q) of 1989 Act. Delhi and shall include the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination. 7. From the material on record it is revealed that Mayo College is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. Thus it enters within the ambit of 'recognised institution' as defined under Section 2(q) of 1989 Act. I do not find any merit in the first submission of the Learned Counsel for the employer and I hold that Mayo College being recognised institution is governed by the mandate of Section 18 of 1989 Act. 8. Section 18 of 1989 Act provides that before dismissing, removing or reducing the rank of an employee of recognised institution, it will be necessary to provide him a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken. (This provision shall be subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf).But as per first proviso appended to this section, obtaining of prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him is necessary before passing the final order of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of the employee. Second proviso envisages three situations to which the mandates of Section 18 shall not apply. The situations are as under : (i) Where the employee is dismissed or removed on the ground of conduct that led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) Where it is not practicable or expedient to give the employee an opportunity of showing cause and 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 can not 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. 9. It is thus evident that as per first proviso to Section 18 before passing a final order of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of the employee following conditions are necessary : (i) employee is provided reasonable opportunity of being heard, and (ii) Prior approval of the Director of Education or officer authorised by him, is obtained. Such approval may be oral. Such approval may be oral. But in view of second proviso final order of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank may be passed even without providing opportunity of hearing to the employee where the conduct of employee leads to his conviction on a criminal charge or where providing such opportunity is not practicable or expedient but written consent of Director of Education has been obtained or where in the interest of institution Managing Committee formed unanimous opinion to terminate the services of employee. In such a situation giving six months notice or salary to the employee and obtaining written consent of Director of Education is necessary. 10. Lord Denning in Magor and St. Meelons R.D.C. v. New Port Borough Council, (1951) 2 All England Reporter 839 propounded that the duty of Court is to interpret the words that the Legislature has used. Although a Court can not supply a real casus omissus it is equally clear that it should not so interpret a statute as to create a casus omissus when there is really none. 11. To my mind provisions contained in Section 18 of 1989 Act should be so interpreted that the same can be made applicable fairly and probably. I am not impressed with the submissions of Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Learned Senior Counsel that clause (iii) of second proviso of Section 18 does not presuppose the prior written consent of the Director of Education. The mandate given in the following words of said clause (iii) is very clear : ".....after giving him six months notice or salary in lieu thereof and the consent of the Director of Education is obtained in writing." I am of the considered opinion that where the Managing Committee in the interest of the institution formed unanimous opinion to terminate the services of the employee, it is necessary for the institution to give six months notice or salary to the employee and to obtain prior written consent of Director of Education. The Division Bench of this Court in Shri Chitra Gupta Shishu Gyan Mandir v. RNGEIT Jaipur and others (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 965/99, decided on January 19, 2000) observed thus : "The Learned Counsel for Appellant argued that the State Government subsequently issued a clarification to say that the power of giving consent as contemplated in the proviso could be exercised by the District Education Officer. That clarification is of subsequent date after passing the order of termination. It is claimed that on the date of passing the order of termination consent of Director of Education was not obtained in writing by the Appellant. Since the requirement of obtaining consent of the Director of Education in writing is mandatory in our opinion the order of termination of service of Respondent No. 4 by the Appellant could not be sustained." (Underlining is mine) 12. The ratio of S.S. Jain Subodh Shiksha Samiti v. Uttam Singh Karnawat (S.B.C.W.P. No. 3838/94) decided on 29-9-94 stands overruled by the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Shri Chitra Gupta Shishu Gyan Mandir case (supra). 13. Even otherwise the impugned orders of termination cannot be sustained on the ground that the employer has failed to place on record the unanimous resolution of the Management Committee whereby the decision to terminate the services of the employees was taken and six months notice or salary was not paid to the employee at the time of passing the order of termination. 14. The apprehension voiced by the employer as regards the negative consequences of reinstatement of the employees, to my mind, is unreasonable. From the material on record it does not appear that the relations between the parties have been strained beyond the point of no return. I do not see any valid reason for concluding that compensation in lieu of reinstatement and not reinstatement, is warranted in the circumstances of the instant cases. 15. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The Writ Petitions being devoid of merit, stand dismissed without any order as to costs.Petitions dismissed. *******