JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by Managing Committee of Swami Keshwanand Mahavidyalaya through its Secretary against judgment of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 29.08.2011. The Tribunal, by aforesaid judgment, has allowed the appeal of respondent Indra Gyan Punia and set aside the order of his removal dated 30.06.2006 passed by writ petitioner directing for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 2. The respondent in his appeal filed before the Tribunal asserted that he, upon being duly selected, was appointed as Lecturer in ABST subject of commerce faculty of the petitioner college on 06.08.1984. He always discharged the duties to the best of satisfaction of the management committee of the petitioner-institution. He was initially appointed in the pay scale of 700-1600, which was revised from time to time as per UGC norms. However, the petitioner-institution did not revise the pay scale following the recommendation of 5th pay commission report. Petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal on 27.11.2002 seeking a direction to the petitioner-institution to accordingly revise his pay as per 5th pay commission report, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 27.11.2002. Even then, petitioner did not comply with that direction to revise his pay and did not grant him benefit of pay revision from 01.01.2004 onwards. Taking annoyance from these facts, the petitioner management served an order to the petitioner on 30.06.2006 mentioning therein that in furtherance to resolution dated 27.04.2006 of the management committee, services of the respondent are terminated with effect from 30.06.2006. A cheque of Rs. 1,10,450/- dated 29.06.2006 was also enclosed with that letter for salary in lieu of notice period of six months. 3. It was further asserted by the respondent before the Tribunal that the petitioner-institution was recognised by the State Government and availing grant-in-aid from them. The management has not granted an opportunity of hearing to the respondent prior to passing the order of termination. Provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 were violated, which postulates such opportunity of hearing be afforded to the affected employee. Offering cheque of Rs. 1,10,450/- for salary in lieu of notice period of six months was wholly illegal and did not satisfy the requirement of law as salary for the period from 01.01.2004 except the period from April to September, 2005, was not yet paid. Offering cheque of Rs. 1,10,450/- for salary in lieu of notice period of six months was wholly illegal and did not satisfy the requirement of law as salary for the period from 01.01.2004 except the period from April to September, 2005, was not yet paid. Hence, his salary remained unpaid for more than two years. Prior approval of the Director of Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan has not been obtained, which, as per Section 18 of the Act of 1989, is the condition for passing any such order of removal. The appeal before the Tribunal was contested by the petitioner, who filed reply thereto contesting all the pleas both on facts and law. 4. Shri Sudeep Mathur, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that number of students in the commerce faculty was decreasing and the financial condition of the petitioner-institution was worsening day by day. The management committee passed a resolution on 22.32.2006 to close down the commerce faculty with effect from July, 2006 and thereafter passed another resolution on 27.04.2006 terminating services of the Lecturers, who were working on commerce faculty, including the respondent. No grant-in-aid was received against the post on which the respondent was appointed. When the management approached the Director of the College Education of the Government of Rajasthan for approval to terminate the services of the respondent, the petitioner-institution was informed by letter dated 26.04.2006 that the petitioner was free to take decision at its own level and the State Government has no role to play in this regard. It was contended that when the decision has been taken to close down the commerce faculty in the petitioner-institution, against which no grant-in-aid was received by petitioner-institution, there was no requirement of obtaining prior approval of the Director of the College Education. Reference was made to letter dated 15.04.2006 addressed to the Registrar, University of Bikaner informing abut closer of commerce faculty in the petitioner-institution. The commerce faculty had to be closed down under the compelling circumstances. It was denied that there was any unanimous resolution for dispensing with services of the respondent. Reference was made to Annexure R/1/1 and R/1/2 appended to the reply to the appeal filed before the Tribunal, which was the resolution passed by the management committee. 5. The commerce faculty had to be closed down under the compelling circumstances. It was denied that there was any unanimous resolution for dispensing with services of the respondent. Reference was made to Annexure R/1/1 and R/1/2 appended to the reply to the appeal filed before the Tribunal, which was the resolution passed by the management committee. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner alternatively argued that this court may, in view of the fact that factulty of commerce has been closed down and the post has been abolished, instead of directing reinstatement of respondent, consider granting lump sum compensation to respondent in lieu of his reinstatement. In support of this argument, learned counsel for petitioner has relied on judgment of this court in Management Committee, Jawahar Lal Nehru Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya Kota v. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions, Tribunal, Jaipur and Others - 2012 (2) WLC (Raj.) 565 . It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 6. Dr. V.S. Nain, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner had earlier terminated the services of one Smt. Vimla Jangu, who was also working with the petitioner-institution, on the ground of reduction in the strength of students and closer of post graduation classes and in her case too prior approval of the Director of the College Education was not sought. The appeal filed by Smt. Vimla Jangu before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal against her termination was allowed vide judgment dated 27.10.2001. The Writ Petition No.346/2002 filed the petitioner-institution against the judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20.02.2002. The appeal filed there-against, being Special Appeal (Writ) No.130/2002, was also dismissed by Division Bench vide judgment dated 15.01.2008. Challenging those judgments, the petitioner-institution went to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal, which too was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2011. 7. Learned counsel for respondent therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 8. The appeal filed there-against, being Special Appeal (Writ) No.130/2002, was also dismissed by Division Bench vide judgment dated 15.01.2008. Challenging those judgments, the petitioner-institution went to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal, which too was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2011. 7. Learned counsel for respondent therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 8. The Tribunal in the present case has allowed the appeal primarily on the ground that even if the respondent was working against a non-aided post, in view of law laid down by the larger bench of this court in Central Academy Society v. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur and others - 2010 (3) WLC (Raj.) 21 , wherein reference was made only on the question of applicability of Section 18 of he Act of 1989 and the rules framed thereunder, in the context of an unaided educational institution, it was held that even in such cases of termination simplicitor clause (iii) of second proviso to Section 18 would apply. Since admittedly no such approval was taken, the order of termination was illegal. 9. The contention that when petitioner management approached the Director of the College Education, he informed that the management was competent to take the decision at its own level, also stands falsified because letter dated 26.04.2006 filed with the reply to the appeal as Annexure R/4, does not pertain to the respondent Indra Gyan Punia but that letter has been written to the Secretary of the petitioner-institution in the context of one Smt. Sumitra, Lecturer in EAFM subject, for whose removal also the approval was sought by the petitioner. Thus it is clearly evident that no efforts were made by the petitioner-institution to seek prior approval of the Director of the College Education for removal of respondent. 10. Besides the Tribunal held that apart from payment of salary of six months notice period, outstanding salary and other emoluments were also not paid. The management has not proved that as per third clause of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act, the managing committee has passed any resolution that services of the respondent cannot be continued without adversely affecting the interest of the institution. No such resolution has been placed on record and, therefore, even that provision also stood violated. The management has not proved that as per third clause of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act, the managing committee has passed any resolution that services of the respondent cannot be continued without adversely affecting the interest of the institution. No such resolution has been placed on record and, therefore, even that provision also stood violated. To test the correctness of that finding, the copies of the resolution should have been placed on record before this court, which were also produced with the reply to the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal Annexure R/1/2 have to be examined. Neither of two resolutions satisfied the requirement of third clause of the proviso to Section 18. 11. In the cited judgment of the Management Committee, Jawahar Lal Nehru Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya Kota v. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions, Tribunal, Jaipur and Others , supra, also it was held that requirement of obtaining prior approval of the Director of the College Education even when the post has been abolished, which is what has been being argued by the petitioner in the present case and even if the post, against which the employee sought to be removed was working, was not receiving grant-in-aid, the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 18 of the Act as also third clause of the proviso thereto would be attracted. Neither of them have been complied with in the present case too and, therefore, the judgment of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. 12. Coming lastly to the submission about payment of lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, learned counsel for the respondent has cited judgment of the coordinate bench of this court in Vimla Jangu, which has been upheld by Division Bench and also by the Supreme Court, arising out of a case in which a Lecturer working with the petitioner-institution itself was removed in identical circumstances. Her removal was set aside by the Tribunal. The High Court declined to interfere. In view of the specific decided case by this court in respect of the petitioner-institution itself, I do not find any reason to take a different view of the matter. 13. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. This also disposes of stay application. *******