JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 6.8.2008 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4264/2007 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner has been partly allowed setting aside the interest awarded by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") and the appellant was directed to pass necessary orders in compliance of the directions issued vide judgment dated 8.5.2007 passed by the Tribunal for reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 with consequential benefits within two months. 2. The appeal has been preferred on the limited ground that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in observing that the respondent No. 1 shall be reinstated whereas at the time of initiation of the enquiry, he was under suspension and at the most, the learned Single Judge could have restored this status to the respondent No. 1. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The respondent No. 1 while working as Principal in the institution of the appellants, i.e. Acharya Tulsi Amrit Mahavidyalaya, Gangapur (Bhilwara) was served with the charge-sheet on 27.9.2003 and an enquiry was conducted under Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid, Conditions of Service etc.) Rules, 1993. After holding the enquiry against the alleged misconduct; the charge against the respondent No. 1 was established and major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 1.6.2005. The order was challenged by way of appeal before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, by the respondent No. 1. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, the learned Tribunal set aside the order of the dismissal and directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent No. 1 with all consequential benefits along with the interest @ 9% per annum vide order dated 8.5.2007. 6. Aggrieved of the order of the learned Tribunal, the management preferred a writ petition bearing No. 4264/2007 challenging the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge after appreciating the claims and counter-claim of the parties, disposed off the writ petition by partly allowing it to the extent of setting-aside the order of the Tribunal whereby the interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the petitioner. Other relief granted was maintained. 7. The learned Single Judge after appreciating the claims and counter-claim of the parties, disposed off the writ petition by partly allowing it to the extent of setting-aside the order of the Tribunal whereby the interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the petitioner. Other relief granted was maintained. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the observations of the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent No. 1 are erroneous for the simple reason that the respondent No. 1 at the time of imposition of the penalty was under suspension and the learned Single Judge should have directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent No. 1 treating to be under suspension. He has supported his argument relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case title Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls & Ors., reported in (2002) 10 SCC 293 . This judgment relates to a situation whereby copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the delinquent officer and the Supreme Court set aside the order of the dismissal and directed the respondents to hold the enquiry from that stage. This judgment is not relevant for the purpose of this case. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Tribunal's findings are legally sound and the learned Single Judge was justified in not disturbing the order of the learned Tribunal. His submission is that the order of dismissal has been passed by the appellant in contravention to the mandate of the law contained in Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989"). He has drawn the attention of the Court on Section 18 of the Act of 1989, which reads as under : "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." 9. The aforementioned law contained in the Section 18 is that no order in this regard can be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained. 10. Learned counsel has submitted that the management passed the dismissal order on 1.6.2005 whereas the approval of Director of Education was obtained on 5.8.2006. He has made out that the dismissal order was passed by the management in breach of Section 18 of the Act. There is substance in his plea that the judgment of the tribunal is in consonance with law and the learned Single Judge was also justified in up-holding it. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent No. 1 within two months and that period has elapsed during the pendency of this appeal, therefore, it may be extended. We extend the period of two months from today. 12. We hold for the aforesaid reasons that the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant to relegate the respondent No. 1 to the position of his suspension as he is facing enquiry however has no legal substance. Therefore, the appellant is under obligation to reinstate the respondent No. 1. We, therefore, find that no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge in maintaining the order of the Tribunal to that extent. 13. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******