JUDGMENT 1. - In all the aforesaid five special appeals, common order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.11.2001 is under challenge whereby the common judgment dated 06.06.2001 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') settingaside the dismissal order against the respondents, has been upheld. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken into consideration that for adjudication the question involved in the five writ petitions is one and the same and disposed of the same by a common order. We are also disposing of these five special appeals by this common judgment for the aforesaid reasons. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows : Smt. Pushpa Sharma (respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 62/2002 ) was appointed on the post of Teacher and was confirmed on 1.7.1992. She was dismissed from service on 02.09.1997. Smt. Snehlata Sharma (respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 202/2002) was appointed as a Primary Teacher in Hindi subject and she was dismissed from service by order dated 20.08.1997. Mrs. Ella Boss (respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 203/2002) was appointed as Music Teacher and was confirmed on 16.12.1994. She was dismissed from service on 26.8.1997. Smt. Mamti Rani Pathak (respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 204/2002) 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. Smt. Manju Bhatnagar (respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 205/2002) was appointed as a Lab Assistant in the appellant's School and was confirmed on the post on 23.11.1995. She was dismissed from service by order dated 22.08.1997. 3. Against the aforesaid dismissal orders of the respondents, they filed separate appeals before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur and the Tribunal vide its common order dated 06.06.2001 allowed the appeals and set- aside the orders of dismissal of the respondents from service and further granted continuance in service with all service benefits. 4. 3. Against the aforesaid dismissal orders of the respondents, they filed separate appeals before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur and the Tribunal vide its common order dated 06.06.2001 allowed the appeals and set- aside the orders of dismissal of the respondents from service and further granted continuance in service with all service benefits. 4. Against the said judgment of the Tribunal dated 06.06.2001, the appellant-Society filed five writ petitions which were dismissed by this Court vide common order dated 08.11.2001 holding that petitioner No. 2, the Institution is a recognised institution, therefore, the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989'), will apply and admittedly there was no compliance of Section 18 of the said Act, therefore, order of dismissal from service is valid and all the writ petitions have been dismissed without any order as to costs. 5. Some other relevant facts on the basis of which the submissions have been made by the counsel for the appellants are that the petitioner-Society has been constituted with the aims and object amongst others to create and develop educational and technical training facilities at military stations to meet the needs of the children of army personnel including Ex. serviceman. The said Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and have also framed its rules and regulations which inter alia prescribe the simple termination and dismissal by way of disciplinary action under Chapter-9 after show cause notice followed by three months' salary on not satisfied with reply to the notice. It has been further stated that they have not taken any recognition from the Government as required under Section 3 of the Act of 1989, therefore, the institution-Society will not be covered by the Act of 1989 and further in the special appeal an attempt has been made by raising legal question that Section 18 is applicable only when the action is taken as penal in nature which is not there in these cases to come out of the clutches of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and much emphasis has been laid in the pleadings and contentions that the rules and regulations framed by the Society will hold the field and the orders of dismissal/termination/removal is to be adjudged as per the rules and regulations of the Society. 6. 6. The submission of the counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge has committed an error in covering the institution under the Act of 1989 and further applying Section 18 of the Act of 1989 without giving any specific finding with regard to the applications of rules and regulations of the society. 7. The submission of the counsel for the respondents is that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the definition of Board, Non-Government Educational Institution and recognised Institution given under Section 2(c), 2(p) and 2(q) of the Act of 1989 respectively which has been further considered with reference to Section 3(c) of recognition of the institution and held that for the institutions which are recognised by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan and Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi need not to seek further recognition from the competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner's institution which is admittedly recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi is a non-Government Educational recognised Institution and need not to seek further recognition under Section 3 of the Act of 1989 on account of being recognised by the Board. The further submissions of the counsel for the respondents is that the appellant- Institution is covered under the provisions of the Act of 1989 and Section 18 which is applicable in case of recognised institution will also apply on the employees of the institution. Admittedly, there is no compliance of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and, therefore, the impugned orders of dismissal have been rightly set-aside by the Tribunal and upheld by the learned Single Judge. As regards the submission of the counsel for the appellant-Institution that the orders of dismissal are not penal in nature, therefore, Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not apply, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that even in case of simple termination, Section 18 (iii) of the Act of 1989 will apply. With regard to the further submission of the counsel for the appellant for applicability of rules and regulations of the Society the counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Act of 1989 is a legislative enactment, therefore, the rules of the Society which are non- statutory in character have to vive way to the Act of 1989. With regard to the further submission of the counsel for the appellant for applicability of rules and regulations of the Society the counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Act of 1989 is a legislative enactment, therefore, the rules of the Society which are non- statutory in character have to vive way to the Act of 1989. Otherwise also, under Section 40 of the Act of 1989 overriding the effect has been given over anything inconsistent contained in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law. 8. We have gone through the record of the writ petition, perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and further considered the rival submissions made by the parties. 9. Before we proceed to consider the submissions made by the parties with reference to relevant provisions of law, it will be useful to quote the same i.e. Sections 2(c), 2(p), 2(q), 3, 18 and 40 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, which reads as under : Section 2. Definitions. (c) "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 Examinations; (p) "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 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 or the people in the State and which is neither owned nor managed by the State or Central Government or by an University or local authority or other authority owned or controlled by the State or Central Government; (q) "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. Section 3 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 : 3. Recognition of institutions. Section 3 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 : 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 fulfillment of such terms and conditions as may be prescribed : Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act. 1989 : 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. Section 40 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 : 40. Overriding effect of the Act - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law. 10. Section 40 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 : 40. Overriding effect of the Act - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law. 10. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the institution is a non- Government recognised institution as per the definition of clauses 2(c), 2(p) and 2(q) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 which does not require to be further recognised by the competent authority under Section 3 of the Act of 1989 and once it is non-Government recognised institution, the provisions of the Act of 1989 will apply. The finding of the learned Single Judge on applicability of the Act of 1989 is in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1989. We do not find any infirmity in the said finding and uphold the same. 11. As regards further submission on applicability of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, only in case action is taken by way of disciplinary action and not simple termination, we are of the view that the main Section 18 and Proviso (iii) of the Act of 1989 will cover both type of cases and said Section has (iii) of the Act of 1989 will cover both type of cases and said Section has been enacted with a view to check the arbitrary action of the management in removing, dismissing, reducing in rank and termination also. Therefore, the provisions of reasonable opportunity/unanimous resolution of Managing Committee and approval/consent of the Director are made mandatory in the order to ensure the fairness of the action. Neither there is unanimous resolution of the Managing Committee nor six months notice was given nor payment of six months salary in lieu of notice was given nor consent of the Director was taken. Therefore, even if the case is taken to be of termination, then also mandatory Proviso (iii) of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 has been violated. The said Section is applicable in respect of all the employee whose services have been dismissed by way of disciplinary action or simple termination. 12. Admittedly, there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, therefore, on this count, dismissal/termination orders are void. We also affirm the finding of the learned single Judge on this issue. 13. 12. Admittedly, there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, therefore, on this count, dismissal/termination orders are void. We also affirm the finding of the learned single Judge on this issue. 13. The last submission of the counsel for the appellant was that rules of the Society will hold the field in case of termination/dismissal from service. The submission of the counsel for the respondents is that the same are not statutory in character and will give way to the legislative enactment as per well settled preposition of law. Otherwise also, Section 40 of the Act of 1989 is having overriding effect over anything inconsistent contained in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law. The judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference on any of the submissions made by the appellants. 14. At the time of conclusion of the hearing when the parties were heard on the issue of back wages also both the parties agreed that in case the appeals are dismissed, then 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of judgment of the Tribunal be given. Request was also made by the counsel for the respondents that the appellants be also directed to make pay fixation within a period of one month. One more fact was brought to our notice that Smt. Pushpa Sharma, respondent No. 1 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 628/2002, retired on 30.04.2005 and therefore, the said direction for payment of post-retiral benefits be also issued. 15. The respondents who have been reinstated by virtue of the interim order of this Court, Upheld by the Supreme Court, will continue as if no dismissal/termination order has been passed. The respondents shall be entitled for 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of judgment of the Tribunal i.e. 06.06.2001. 16. Smt. Pushpa Sharma will be deemed to be in continuous service till 30.4.2005 and shall also be entitled for retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, leave encashment etc. within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 17. It is expected from the appellants to consider the case of the present respondents for pay fixation and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 18. within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 17. It is expected from the appellants to consider the case of the present respondents for pay fixation and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 18. For these reasons, the instant appeal stand disposed of.Order accordingly. *******