JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The petitioner who is working as post-graduate Teacher (Physical Education) in Army Public School, Kota has filed the instant petition challenging the termination order dt. 2nd December, 2017, passed by respondent No. 3 i.e. Chairman, Army Public School, Kota. 2. The petitioner has further questioned the advertisement dt. 17th February, 2018 (Annex. 21) whereby Army Public School, Kota has invited applications from the candidates, for appointment on the post of PGT (Physical Education). 3. This Court on 6th March, 2018 had asked learned counsel for the petitioner to make submissions, in respect of availability of remedy of filing appeal under the Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter called Act of 1989). 4. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has rightly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is not required to file an appeal under the provisions of Act of 1989. 5. Counsel has submitted that the Apex Court in the case of All India Sainik Schools Employees Association vs. The Defence Minister-cum-Chairman, Board of Governors reported in AIR 1989 SC 88 , has held that Sainik School Society is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Counsel has submitted that on the basis of the said proposition of law, settled by the Apex Court, once Sainik School Society is held to be "State", the writ petition is maintainable challenging any action of the Sainik School society. 7. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Bajrang Lal Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 1994(2) WLC 1. Counsel submitted that the private educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the Government and governed by 1993 Rules and run by Registered Society, performs "public function" and is amenable to writ jurisdiction as instrumentality of State. 8. Counsel submitted that the remedy of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is available to the persons who are working in the Aided Institutions and if Army Public School is receiving grant-in-aid from Government, writ is the only remedy, which can be availed by an employee, against arbitrary action of the employer. 9. 8. Counsel submitted that the remedy of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is available to the persons who are working in the Aided Institutions and if Army Public School is receiving grant-in-aid from Government, writ is the only remedy, which can be availed by an employee, against arbitrary action of the employer. 9. Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vidhya Dhar Pande vs. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 381. Counsel submitted that if school, though run by a trust, if receives 100% grant from Government, the same is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. 10. Counsel further placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. reported in AIR 1983 SC 454 . Counsel on the basis of said judgment has canvassed that if the delinquent employee is not represented by his defence nominee in a departmental enquiry, the proceedings are vitiated on account of not having a proper representation. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the definition given in Section 2(p) of the Act of 1989 clearly provides that the institutions which are not receiving any aid from State or Central Government and are further not managed by the State and Central Government, such Institutions being "Non-Government Education Institutions" cannot be made amenable to the jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal, which is created to decide the disputes under the Act of 1989. 12. Counsel submitted that Army Public School is not covered by definition of "Non-Government Education Institution" as per Section 2(q) of the Act and as such petitioner since has not been working in Non-Government Education Institution cannot be asked to go to Tribunal and provisions of Act of 1989 does not apply to Army Public School. 13. Counsel submitted that Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, has framed its regulations and as per the regulations 1983, the authorities are required to act in a particular manner and the authorities have utterly failed in the instant case to even follow the procedure, provided in the provisions of regulations of Society itself. 14. 14. Counsel submitted that every citizen has a right to approach the Court of law for redressal of his grievance and if the writ jurisdiction is available, fundamental right of the citizen is required to be protected by the High Court under writ jurisdiction. 15. Counsel submitted that the petitioner had rendered unblemished service and he has been made a scapegoat due to certain vested interest of the employees in the organization and due to such acts of the respondents, the petitioner has been terminated from service in a most arbitrary manner. 16. Counsel has also tried to persuade this Court to look into the allegations of sexual harassment leveled by the students against the petitioner and he has also tried to persuade this Court to consider the statement of one of the victims record under Section 164 Cr.PC to contend that petitioner has not committed any such act, which could result in termination of service. 17. This Court before adverting to the submissions of counsel for the petitioner, deems proper to quote the definitions of "Recognized Institution", "Board" & "Non-Govt. Education Institution" as given in Section 2(q), 2(c) & 2(p), Sections 18 & 19 of the Act of 1989 as hereunder:- Sec. 2(q) "Recognized Institution":- means a non-Government educational institution affiliated to any University or recognized by the Board, Director of Education or any officer authorized by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf. Sec. 2(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. Sec. 2(p) "Non-Govt. Education 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 recognised 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: 18. Removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees:- Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, no employees of a recognized 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 authorized 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 given 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 cannot 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. 19. Appeal to the Tribunal:- (I) If a managing committee is aggrieved from the order of refusal made by the Director of Education under Section 18, it may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal constituted under Section 22 within ninety days of the date of receipt of such order. (2) An employee aggrieved from an order of the managing committee made under Section 18, may prefer an appeal to the said Tribunal within ninety days of the date of receipt of such order. 18. The perusal of Section 18 shows that an employee of recognized Institution shall not 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. There are other safeguards which have been provided under the said section. 19. The requirement of Section 18 is two fold i.e. there has to be an employee of a recognized Institution and he cannot be removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 20. There are other safeguards which have been provided under the said section. 19. The requirement of Section 18 is two fold i.e. there has to be an employee of a recognized Institution and he cannot be removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 20. The definition of 'Recognized Institutions' as per Section 2(q) of the Act of 1989 means a non Government Educational Institution affiliated to any University or recognized by the Board, Director of Education or any Officer authorized by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf. 21. The definition of Board is also given in Section 2(c) and "Board" means the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and shall include Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations. 22. The Army Public School, where petitioner was working is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and as such the petitioner was working in a Recognized Institution. 23. The provision of filing an appeal is provided in Section 19 of the Act of 1989 and it has been provided under sub Section (2) that if an employee feels aggrieved from an order of the managing committee made under Section 18, he may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of such order. The necessary corollary to Section 18 & 19 is to provide a remedy to an employee of recognized institution to challenge the order which is passed either of removal/dismissal or reduction in rank. 24. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the organization, where the petitioner is working is not amenable to the Tribunal as per definition of Section 2(p), this Court finds that bare reading of definition of 'Non-Government Education Institution' leads to the conclusion that any institution/school which is run with the object of imparting education for obtaining such qualifications which are recognized either by State or by Central Government and further if they are not managed by the State or Central Government, such institutions are treated as non Government Education Institution. 25. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the employer working in Army Public School, cannot be asked to file an appeal, before the Tribunal, is without any substance. 26. 25. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the employer working in Army Public School, cannot be asked to file an appeal, before the Tribunal, is without any substance. 26. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of All India Sainik Schools Employees Association vs. The Defence Minister-cum-Chairman, Board of Governors and Vidhya Dhar Pande vs. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti & Ors. (supra) only deals with a situation where the Educational Institutions are run by either Sainik School Society or a Private Trust, the same are held to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The said decision of the Apex Court does not lay down the law that if a statutory or alternative remedy is available, the same is not required to be availed and writ jurisdiction can be invoked. This Court finds that the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is of little assistance to him for convincing this Court that the jurisdiction of filing an appeal before the Non Government Educational Tribunal is not available to an employee. 27. The status of 'Sainik School' as State under Article 12 of the Constitution is not disputed at all and further being Higher Secondary School, though run by private trust, receiving 100% grant from the Government, can still be held amenable to writ jurisdiction. 28. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner of Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Bajrang Lal Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., this Court has interpreted the provisions of Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institution Act, 1989, and held that the person who has got a remedy under the law, can approach the appropriate forum and the Larger Bench after deciding the question of law, further remitted the matter back to the different Benches who were hearing the writ petition, as to whether in the circumstances of the case writ petitions can be entertained without the employee concerned having availed the alternative remedy of filing an appeal provided under the Act. 29. 29. This Court finds that the said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not cover the present controversy as there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner to file an appeal provided under Section 19 of the Act and the employer of the petitioner is a Recognized Institution and if any action of removal from service has been taken, the same is covered under the definition of Section 18 of the Recognized Institution. 30. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Army Public School is not a private institution, the land has been allotted to such institution out of defence land, the building has been constructed by MES authorities out of the funds given by UOI, in the opinion of the Court, the said ingredients/examples will not change the situation as the Army Public School is a recognized institution, as per requirement of definition of the Act of 1989 and in spite of these ingredients, the remedy is available to an employee to file an appeal before the Tribunal. 31. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a violation of different provisions of regulations of the society and petitioner denied a reasonable opportunity, suffice it to say that this Court is not examining the issue on merits and it is to be agitated only before the appropriate forum in appeal to be filed by the petitioner. 32. This Court in the case of Managing Committee through Chairman (Brig.) Dy. G.O.C. Army School, Station Road, H.Q. Kota and Anr. vs. Pushpa Sharma & 4 Ors. reported in WLC (Raj.) 2002 UC 48, had an occasion to consider the applicability of provisions of Act of 1989, with respect to a society which is recognized by Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi running a recognized institution. The relevant para 21 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as hereunder:- "21. In the present case the petitioner Society having been recognized by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, it shall be a recognized Institution. Once the petitioner Society is a recognized institution, the provisions of the Act of 1989 inclusive of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 applies with full force to the petitioner Society it being a recognized institution. Once the petitioner Society is a recognized institution, the provisions of the Act of 1989 inclusive of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 applies with full force to the petitioner Society it being a recognized institution. When the petitioner Society has not complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the action of dismissal against the respondents has rightly been set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 6.6.2001." 33. The said judgment of the Single Bench has been approved by the Division Bench in the case of Managing Committee through Chairman (Brid.) Dy. G.O.C., Army School & Anr. vs. Smt. Pushpa Sharma & 4 Ors. reported in 2006 (3) WLC (Raj.) 504. 34. This Court in the case of Managing Committee Mayo College, Ajmer & Anr. vs. Kailash Singh & Ors. 2002(2) RLR 804 has held that Mayo College, Ajmer affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education is a 'Recognized Institution' as defined under Section 2(q) and is governed by mandate of Section 18 of the Act of 1989. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as hereunder:- "From the material on record it is revealed that Mayo College is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan. Thus it enters within the ambit of 'recognised institution' as defined under Section 2(q) of 1989 Act. I do not find any merit in the first submission of the learned counsel for the employer and I hold that Mayo College being recognized institution is governed by the mandate of Section 18 of 1989 Act." 35. This Court had also an occasion to consider the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, in respect of an Airforce School and this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3106/1996 (Immamuddin vs. State & Ors.) decided on 5th January, 2010 held as under:- "A conjoint reading of provisions (Supra) clearly depicts that those institutions which are recognised or affiliated by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or the Central Board of Secondary Education, or Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, are considered to be "recognized Institutions". Indisputably, presently institution (Air Force School) being a non-Government educational institution recognised by CBSE as defined in S. 2(q) of the Act, 1989 certainly its employees are provided with protection to seek remedy by filing application U/s 21 and appeal U/s 19 of the Act, 1989." 36. This Court finds that the petitioner has wrongly approached this Court by filing the writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is not found to be maintainable. 37. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents on 2nd December, 2017 and as such the limitation provided under Section 19 of filing of an appeal has expired and as such he seeks liberty to make appropriate application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal while filing the appeal. 38. This Court thinks it proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to make an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and it is expected from the Tribunal that necessary facts would be considered for entertaining the appeal as per law. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.