Honble RATHORE, J.–As common question of law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. (2). The petitioner in these writ petitions is a society registered under the Societies Act, 1958. The petitioner society opened an Institution for deaf, dumb, blind and mentally retarded children for their betterment and upliftment and the same is a residential Institution. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since they are providing the basic education to such children to make them understand the basic things in life and to make them able to communicate and express themselves as well as to understand what others may be telling them. Thus, petitioner society is not engaged in imparting education to these children nor providing any certificate of diploma, degree or any academic distinction, but only making effort to inculcate the spirit of sense developing and a capacity to understand. (4). The petitioner submitted an application to the Director of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner for affording recognition to the deaf and dumb school and the same was accorded vide order dated 21.8.1989. (5). The controversy in this matter arises when services of Shri Rajendra Joshi-respondent No. 2 (in writ petition No. 1916/1996) and Shri Ram Swaroop Khati-respondent No. 2 (In writ petition No. 490/1996) were terminated. They filed applications before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (For short the Tribunal). The Tribunal allowed their applications vide order dated 15.1.1996 & 18.4.1995 and termination orders were set aside by the Tribunal with a direction to reinstate Shri Rajendra Joshi & Shri Ram Swaroop Khati in service. (6). The petitioner mainly emphasise the contention that the orders passed by the Tribunal is beyond jurisdiction as the petitioner society does not fall within the definition of Non- Government Educational Institution as defined under Section 2 (p) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1989). Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the petitioner society is a Non-Government Education Institution since it has been recognised by the District Education Officer, Bhilwara. The petitioner society is not imparting any education or preparing for training students for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma or any academic distinction and recognition was given to the petitioner society (Special) Primary Level School. The petitioner society is not imparting any education or preparing for training students for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma or any academic distinction and recognition was given to the petitioner society (Special) Primary Level School. This recognition was only necessary for the purpose of receiving the aid from the Central Government as the Central Government provides the specialised equipment and accessories, which are necessary to be used by deaf and dumb children to make them understand and communicate themselves. (7). Mr. Dalip Singh also referred various provisions of the Act of 1989 to establish his case that the petitioner Institution is not a recognised and aided Institution. Thus, the provisions of the Act of 1989 are not applicable and the judgment passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. (8). Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner Institution is not receiving any aid from the State Government within the meaning of `aid under Section 2(a), the petitioner cannot be considered as `aided institution as defined under Section 2(b). The Section 2(a) & 2(b) reads as under :- 2(a) ``aid means any aid granted to a recognised educational institution by the State Government. 2(b) ``aided institution means a recognised institution which is receiving aid in the form of maintenance grant from the State Government. (9). Mr. Dalip Singh further submits that as the petitioner Institution is not providing any degree, diploma or any academic distinction, the petitioner Institution cannot be termed as Non- Government Educational Institution. In this regard, he referred Section 2 (p) of the Act of 1989, which reads as under :- 2 (p) ``Non-Government educational institution means any college, school, training institution or any other institution, by whatever name designated established and run with the object of imparting education or preparing or training students for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma or any academic distinction recognized 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; (10). Mr. Dalip Singh submits that Shri Rajendra Joshi & Shri Ramswaroop Khati were not recruit as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1989, but were engaged on contract basis. Mr. Dalip Singh submits that Shri Rajendra Joshi & Shri Ramswaroop Khati were not recruit as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1989, but were engaged on contract basis. Since they have been given appointment on contract basis, the relationship of master and servant does not exist there. In support of his contentions, he referred a judgment T.M.A. Pal Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (1). (11). In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Act of 1989 has been enacted with the view to provide better organisation and development of the education in the Non- Government Educational Institutions in the State of Rajasthan. He also referred Section 2(a), 2(b) reproduced hereinabove & Section 2(i), which is reproduced hereunder :- 2(i) ``Employee includes a teacher and every other employee working in a recognised institution; (12). Learned counsel further referred Section 16 which deals with the power of the State Government to regulate the terms and conditions of employment and also referred other provisions of the Act of 1989 to pursue that the provisions of the Act of 1989 are applicable to all the institutions which are recognised by the State Government. The petitioner Institution is recognised by the State Government, therefore, the Act of 1989 is applicable to the petitioner Institution. (13). In support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondents referred a judgment rendered in case of The Managing Committee, Central Academy Senior Secondary School, Ambamata (SBCWP No. 3753/2000 dated 23.11.2001) (2), wherein the Management has raised the question that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the Institution as it was an unaided Institution. He also referred the judgment rendered in case of Shree Chitragupt Shishu Gyan Mandir vs. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. (3). In the aforesaid case, the Management has raised the plea on the ground that since they are not receiving any aid from the State, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1989 and rules are not applicable to the Institution. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment (M.G.D. Girls School & Another vs. Educational Tribunal & Smt. Indubala Srivastava (4)), and (Managing Committee Mayo College, Ajmer & Anr. vs. Kailash Singh & Ors. (5)). (14). Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the relevant provisions of the Act of 1989 and the judgments referred before me. (15). Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment (M.G.D. Girls School & Another vs. Educational Tribunal & Smt. Indubala Srivastava (4)), and (Managing Committee Mayo College, Ajmer & Anr. vs. Kailash Singh & Ors. (5)). (14). Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the relevant provisions of the Act of 1989 and the judgments referred before me. (15). The main controversy in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner Institution is an unaided Institution or not and provisions of the Act of 1989 are applicable to the petitioner Institution or not. It is not disputed that the petitioner Institution is receiving any aid from the State Government as they are getting aid from the Central Government. For getting aid from the Central Government, it is pre-requisite condition is that the petitioner Institution should be recognised from the State Government. The Director, Primary & Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner granted permanent recognition to the Institution vide order dated 21.8.1989 w.e.f. 1.7.1989 with the condition that the petitioner Institution shall abidi by the rules and regulations, in violation of rules and directions, the recognition can be cancelled by the State Government. Thus, no doubt, petitioner is a recognised institution. (16). The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner Institution does not fall within the category of Non-Government Education as the petitioner Institution is not imparting education or preparing or training students for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma or any academic distinction is not tenable as the petitioner Institution is educating the deaf, dumb and mentally retorted children to make them understand basic things in life. Thus, the petitioner Institution falls under the category of Section 2(q) and is Non-Government Education Institution. (17). I have also considered the averment made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents were given appointment purely on temporary basis and came to an end of the year when the session was over. No order of the appointment whatsoever is placed by the petitioner to show that the respondents were given appointment on the contract basis. (18). (17). I have also considered the averment made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents were given appointment purely on temporary basis and came to an end of the year when the session was over. No order of the appointment whatsoever is placed by the petitioner to show that the respondents were given appointment on the contract basis. (18). In case of Managing Committee Mayo College, Ajmer, an objection was raised that since the Mayo College is affiliated by the Central Government and receiving aid from the Central Government, but the same ground raised on behalf of the Managing Committee Mayo College was declined by this Court and the Institution was considered as recognised Institution as defined under Section 2(q) and is governed by the mandate of Section 18 of the Act of 1989. (19). After going through the provisions of Section 18, no doubt is left that 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. (20). This Court in the cases referred hereinabove having a consistent view that the Institution which is recognised by the State Government event not receiving the aid from the State Government, is covered by the provisions of the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993. (21). With relation to compensation, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a separate writ petition No. 3084/1997 has been filed by the respondent-petitioner challenging the order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has denied the backwages and the consequential benefits. (22). In view of this fact and after hearing the respective parties, I do not want to pass any order with relation to grant of compensation in lieu of termination of service. Let the writ petition No. 3084/1997 may be fixed for hearing. (23). In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the firm opinion that the Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in entertaining the application filed by the respondents. I found no good reason to interfere in the judgment rendered by the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed with no order as to costs.