Mumbai Jurisdiction Clause Cannot Oust Educational Tribunal

Mumbai Jurisdiction Clause in Appointment Letter Cannot Oust Tribunal Under Non-Government Educational Institutions Act: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 30 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that a clause in an appointment letter giving courts at Mumbai jurisdiction cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (paras 2, 7). Section 20 of the Act makes a contract between a recognised institution and its employee void to the extent it takes away the employee's statutory rights (paras 4, 7). The appeal of the Vedanta Foundation and the Vedanta P.G. Girls College management was dismissed (para 9).

Key holdings

A clause in an appointment letter naming courts at Mumbai did not exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the 1989 Act (paras 2, 7).

Section 20 makes a contract between a recognised institution and its employee void to the extent it takes away the employee's rights under the Act (paras 4, 7).

Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a forum that lacks it, though they may choose between courts that are otherwise competent (paras 5-6).

The appellants' objection gave no sustainable ground to restore the Tribunal's order of 8 June 2026 (para 7).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The Management Committees of the Vedanta Foundation, Mumbai, and of Vedanta P.G. Girls College, Reengus, Sikar, appealed against a Single Judge's judgment dated 1 September 2026 (paras 2, 9). The respondents were Dr. Shubha Sharma and the Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan. The principal issue was whether the appointment letter's clause stipulating the jurisdiction of courts at Mumbai could exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the 1989 Act (para 2). The Single Judge had held that a contractual stipulation cannot override the statutory framework governing an employee's rights and remedies (para 3). The appellants' objection sought, in effect, restoration of the Tribunal's order dated 8 June 2026 (para 7). The judgment does not describe the underlying dispute.

Court's Findings

The Division Bench found no justification to interfere with the Single Judge's judgment, which had examined the controversy against the Act's statutory scheme and given cogent reasons (paras 2-3). Section 19 provides an appeal against the orders it covers; Section 20 makes a contract between a recognised institution and its employee null and void to the extent it takes away any right conferred on the employee by or under the Act; and Section 21, on disputes relating to conditions of service, shows the legislative intent to provide a statutory mechanism for grievances. These provisions must be read harmoniously to give full effect to the statutory remedies (para 4). Relying on Maharashtra Chess Association, the Bench said a contractual stipulation cannot by itself be an absolute bar to jurisdiction conferred by law (para 5). Under A.V.M. Sales, parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a forum that lacks it, though they may choose between competent courts (para 6). Applying these principles, the Mumbai clause could not, merely by its inclusion, nullify the statutory remedy or divest the Tribunal; Section 20 expressly invalidates such terms (para 7).

Legal Principle

A jurisdiction clause in an appointment letter cannot, merely by being included, nullify a statutory remedy under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 or divest the Tribunal of its jurisdiction. Section 20 voids contract terms that take away rights conferred by the Act, and Sections 19-21 must be read harmoniously (paras 4, 7).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Managements of recognised non-government colleges in Rajasthan should not rely on a distant-forum clause in appointment letters to keep service disputes away from the Tribunal under the 1989 Act. The Division Bench read Sections 19 to 21 together and held that Section 20 invalidates contract terms that take away an employee's rights under the Act, so a Mumbai jurisdiction clause neither nullified the statutory remedy nor divested the Tribunal (paras 4, 7). The limit comes from A.V.M. Sales: parties may choose between courts already competent, but contractual arrangements must operate within the law (para 6). Contrast Arcis Clean Energy, where a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on one of two named places fixed the seat of an arbitration.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India (2020) 13 SCC 285
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 7
Relied on for the effect of a contractual clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at a particular place vis-a-vis the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226: a contractual stipulation cannot, by itself, be an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by law, and its effect must be examined in the context of the applicable statutory and constitutional provisions (para 5). The Court applied the principle in holding that the appointment letter's jurisdiction clause could not divest the Tribunal (para 7).
A.V.M. Sales Corporation v. Anuradha Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2012) 2 SCC 315
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6, 7
Relied on for the principle that parties cannot, by agreement, confer jurisdiction on a forum that does not otherwise possess it, though they may in appropriate circumstances choose between courts otherwise competent, so contractual arrangements must operate within the limits prescribed by law (para 6). Applied in para 7.