JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioners challenge the order passed by Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 2. 2. The respondent No. 2 was serving as a teacher with the petitioner institution. The petitioner institution is a recognised private educational institution, which is not receiving any aid from the Government. The services of respondent No. 2 as a teacher were terminated vide order dated 19.2.2000 as a result of proved misconduct in a departmental enquiry conducted by the petitioner. 3. The aforesaid termination order was challenged by respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal inter alia on the ground that before effecting such termination, prior approval of the Director Education was not obtained as required by proviso to Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant in aid and Service Condition etc.) Act 1989 (for short the Act of 1989). Therefore, the termination order was' invalid. 4. The relevant part of Section 18 reads as under : "Section 18:-Removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees:- Subject to any rules that may be made In this behalf, no employee of a recongized institution shall remove, dismiss or reduce 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." 5. The aforesaid contention found favour with the Tribunal and solely on that premise that the petitioner Institution has not obtained prior approval of the Director of Education or any Office authorised by him in this behalf for making such order, the termination order was held to be void ab initio, consequently, the termination order was set aside and respondent No. 2 was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and to pay arrears of emoluments since filing of this writ petition. 6. The aforesaid question is now no more resintegra. In T.M.A. PAI Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481 , the Supreme Court has made it clear that any recognised private education institution which is not receiving any aid from the State, there has to be least interference by the State in the managerial functions of such Institution. In T.M.A. PAI Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481 , the Supreme Court has made it clear that any recognised private education institution which is not receiving any aid from the State, there has to be least interference by the State in the managerial functions of such Institution. Making specific reference to the requirement of obtaining prior approval before terminating services of an employee of an educational institution which is not receiving any aid from the state in the context of disciplinary action taken by any such institution, it was stated by the Court : "We see no reason why the management of a private unaided educational institution should seek the consent or approval of any governmental authority before taking any such action. In the ordinary relationship of master and servant, governed by the terms of a contract of employment, anyone who is guilty of breach of the terms can be proceeded against and appropriate relief can be sought. Normally, the aggrieved party would approach a court of law and seek redress." 7. The Court found that in the case of private institution, the relationship between the management and the employees is contractual in nature. The Court also found that ordinarily requiring a teacher or a member of the Staff to go to Civil Court for the purpose of seeking redress. Education disputes between he management and the staff of educational institutions must be decided speedily,and without the excessive incurring of costs. It would, therefore, be appropriate that an Educational Tribunal in a State - the object being that the teacher should not suffer through the substantial costs that arise because of the location of the Tribunal. The Court also said that till a specialised tribunal is set up, the right of filing the appeal would lie before the District Judge or Additional District Judge as notified by the Government. The Court further declared : "It will not be necessary for the institution to get prior permission or ex post facto approval of a governmental authority while taking disciplinary action against a teacher or any other employee." 8. The Court further declared : "It will not be necessary for the institution to get prior permission or ex post facto approval of a governmental authority while taking disciplinary action against a teacher or any other employee." 8. In view of the aforesaid, the Proviso to Section 18 has to be read in the light of aforesaid pronouncement of law and in a manner that it does not fall foul with the law declared by the apex court on the subject in the light of constitutional provisions. Requirement to seek prior approval of the Director Education before taking disciplinary action against the teacher or its employee by any recognised institution has to be read in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in T.M.A. Pal Foundation v. State of Karnataka's case and the proviso has to be confined to the private recognised educational institutions which are receiving aid from the State Government to sustain its constitutional validity. Such requirement of prior approval of Director Education before final disciplinary action is taken by way of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of any employee amounts to interference in managerial function and such power cannot extend to such recognised private Educational Institution which do not receive any aid from the State. We accordingly do so. 9. We also find that in the State of Rajasthan, an Educational Tribunal is already established and the appeal has been' preferred before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal and in view thereof, there is no impediment in the case of respondent No: 2 for seeking remedy before the Tribunal against her dismissal order. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal of respondent No. 2 afresh in accordance with law without considering and ignoring issue about the absence of prior approval before making an order of dismissal/removal. The Tribunal is directed to decide the other issue within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ, or producing a certified copy of the order before it, by any of the parties, whichever is earlier.There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed - Order of Tribunal Set Aside - Case Remanded for Decision on other issues. *******