JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order passed by Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal Institutions Act, 1989 (for short "Act of 1989") was dismissed. It was against the order of termination. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination was in violation of Section 18 of the Act of 1989. The approval of Director (Education) was not sought, thus Tribunal committed grave illegality while dismissing the appeal mainly on the ground of abolition of post. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/s, on the other hand submits that unanimous resolution was taken by the Committee to abolish certain posts and consequentially to terminate the service. It was duly approved by the competent authority of Agricultural Department vide Annex.R/2, thus termination of service was in compliance to the provision of Section 18 of the Act of 1989. The approval of Director (Education) was not required as grant-in-aid had been given by the Agricultural Department. Accordingly, Chief Accounts Officer was competent to grant approval of the action taken by the respondent/s. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The main ground is for violation of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, thus aforesaid provision is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "18. Accordingly, Chief Accounts Officer was competent to grant approval of the action taken by the respondent/s. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The main ground is for violation of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, thus aforesaid provision is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "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 him 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 all 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." 6. The perusal of the provision quoted above shows as to in what manner the order of termination and dismissal of an employee can be passed. The Management Committee can take unanimous opinion to discontinue an employee it continuance is prejudicial to the interest of institution. The termination thereupon has to be made by giving six month's notice or salary in lieu thereof and the consent of Director (Education) is to be obtained in writing. The Management Committee can take unanimous opinion to discontinue an employee it continuance is prejudicial to the interest of institution. The termination thereupon has to be made by giving six month's notice or salary in lieu thereof and the consent of Director (Education) is to be obtained in writing. The word "Directors (Education) has been defined under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1989, which is also quoted hereunder for ready reference: "2(f)."Director of Education" means,- (i) in relation to degree and post-graduate colleges and educational institutions of equal or higher studies other than institutions of Sanskrit and technical education, the Director of College Education, Rajasthan; (ii) in relation to the institutions of Sanskrit education, the Director of Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan; (iii) in relation to the institutions of technical education, the Director of Technical Education, Rajasthan; (iv) in relation to schools and institutions other than those referred to in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) the Director or Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan; Explanation - The Director of Education shall include any other officer authorised by him to perform all or any of the functions of the Director of Education under this Act." 7. If the facts of this case are looked into, it is, no doubt true that unanimous decision was taken by the respondents to abolish certain posts and termination thereof. It was sent for approval to the Agricultural Department and thereby the Chief Accounts Officer passed the order on 09.01 2002 to approve the resolution for abolition of the post, it does not specify approval of termination, it is apart from the fact that Chief Accounts Officer, Agricultural is not competent authority to approve or to seek consent for termination as provided under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. It can be by Director (Education) and the definition of Director (Education) does not include Chief Accounts Officer of the Agricultural Department. 8. In view of above, while abolition of post may be justified but consequential termination has to be made by applying the provision of Section 18 of Act of 1989, which has been violated in the instant case. The Tribunal did not consider the issue aforesaid. It referred few judgments cited by the appellant but without discussing them elaborately, the appeal was dismissed. 9. The Tribunal did not consider the issue aforesaid. It referred few judgments cited by the appellant but without discussing them elaborately, the appeal was dismissed. 9. The Tribunal should have adjudicated the matter in reference to Section 18 of the Act of 1989 so as Section 2f of the Act to find out compliance of Section 18. I find nothing on record to show consent of Director (Education), though the petitioner may have been offered six month's notice pay but it is compliance only of one part of Section 18(3) of the Act of 1989. 10. The order of termination and order of this Tribunal are accordingly set aside. The petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, thus would be entitled to the national fixation till the date of retirement and actual retrial benefit thereupon. The length of service would be counted for the benefits like leave encashment and grant of selection scale, thus respondents are directed to fix the salary of petitioner after making fixation on selection scale and actual retrial benefits be given thereupon. It would be minus the benefit already given to the petitioner/s. 11. The compliance of the direction aforesaid may be made by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. This disposes of the stay application as well.Writ Petition Allowed. *******