IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea of lack of resources. It is for the Authorities running the Administration to find out the ways and means of securing funds for the purpose.
2. Grant-in-aid to additional staff appointed in aided school on its upgradation with prior approval, cannot be refused on ground staff position for grant-in-aid purposes stood frozen prior to granting permission to upgrade school and permission was on condition that no grant in aid will be given.

Headnote:Education-Grant-in-aid-Imparting primary and secondary education is bounden duty of State-Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools with that end in view-State cannot shrik its responsibility on plea of lack of resources-Grant-in-aid to additional staff appointed in aided school on its upgradation with prior approval, cannot be refused on ground staff position for grant-in-aid purposes stood frozen prior to granting permission to upgrade school and permission was on condition that no grant in aid will be given.
       Imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of the State Administration. It is a Constitutional mandate that the State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of the society depends. In line with this principle, the State has enacted Statutes and framed Rules and Regulations to control/regulate establishment and running of private schools at different levels. The State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools with a view to ensure smooth running of the institution and to ensure that the standard of teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of funds. It needs no emphasis that appointment of qualified and efficient teachders is a sine qua non for maintaining high standard of teaching in any educational institution. Keeping in mind these and other relevant factors this Court in a number of cases has intervened for setting right any discriminatory treatment meted out to teaching and non-teaching staff of a particular institution or a class of institutions. (Para 6)
       The State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea of lack of resources. It is for the Authorities running the Administration to find out the ways and means of securing funds for the purpose. (Para 10)
       In the instant case initially the school was imparting education upto class 10. In the year 1988, it was decided to start 10+1 and 10+2 classes in the school and upgrade it to senior secondary level. The Director of Public Instructions, Union Territory, Chandigarh granted permission to the management for starting 11th and 12th classes in Humanities and Commerce, with a condition that no grant-in-aid will be provided for any additional staff. The classes were started on the recommendation of the Director of Public Instructions, the institution was granted affiliation by the Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, with effect from 1.5.1998. The corresponding classes in Dev Samaj Degree College, Chandigarh, were closed on the decision of the Chandigarh Administration that education in such classes would be given in schools. The respondents 1 to 12 are lecturers who are teaching different subjects in 11th and 12th classes of the school. When their request for grant of salary at par with their counter parts working in privately managed recognised aided schools in Chandigarh was not heeded to by the Chandigarh Administration. The claim of the respondents was refuted by the appellants mainly on the ground that permission to open the 11th and 12th classes in the school was subject to the condition that no grant-in-aid will be provided for additional staff and therefore the claim of the respondents for parity of salary with their counter parts in other aided institutions cannot be accepted. The appellant Government refuted the claim, as noted earlier, on the ground of conditional grant of permission to open the higher secondary classes and paucity of funds to meet the additional burden in case the prayer in their writ petition is allowed. Substantially, the same position was repeated during the hearing of the case in this court. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that under the rules governing grant in aid, the staff position of the aided institutions as on 30th of November, 1967, has been frozen; since all the respondents were appointed subsequent to that date, they are not entitled to salary at par with teachers of other aided schools who were in service by the cut off date. The High Court granted relief sought for by the teachers.
       Held : It is not the case of the appellants that the Higher Secondary Classes constitute a separate and independent institution. It is also not their case that the posts held by the respondents 1 to 12 are not necessary for running the Higher Secondary Classes and they are surplusage in the institution. As noted earlier, their objection is that, since the said respondents were appointed after 30th November, 1967, they are not entitled to the benefit of salary under the Grant-in-aid Scheme. There is no justification for denying the claim of the respondents for parity of pay scale and to accept the contention of the appellants will amount to confirming the discriminatory treatment against the respondents. Therefore, the High Court rightly rejected the case of the appellants. The directions issued in the impugned Judgment to pay the respondents 1 to 12 the same salary as is being paid to their-counter parts in the privately managed Government aided schools in Chandigarh in the circumstances is unassailable. (Paras 5 and 9)

JUDGMENT

Mohapatra, J.-Dev Samaj Girls Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh is a private educational institution duly recognized and receiving grant-in-aid from the Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration since 1.12.1967. Initially the school was imparting education upto class 10. In the year 1988, it was decided to start 10+1 and 10+2 classes in the school and upgrade it to senior secondary level. The Director of Pubilc Instructions, Union Territory, Chandigarh granted permission to the management for starting 11th and 12th classes in Humanities and Commerce, with a condition that no grant-in-aid will be provided for any additional staff. The classes were started on the recommendation of the Director of Public Instructions, the institution was granted affiliation by the Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, with effect from 1.5.1998. The corresponding classes in Dev Samaj Degree College, Chandigarh, were closed on the decision of the Chandigarh Administration that education in such classes would be given in schools. The respondents 1 to 12 are lecturers who are teaching different subjects in 11th and 12th classes of the school. When their request for grant of salary at par with their counter parts working in privately managed recognised aided schools in Chandigarh was not heeded to by the Chandigarh Administration, they filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking inter alia a writ of mandamus directing the respondents i.e. the Chandigarh Administration, its Finance Secretary, its Director of Public Instructions (School) and the Managing Committee of the School, to pay the same salary and dearness allowance to the petitioners which is being paid to their counter parts working in private recognised aided schools in Chandigarh, especially when the other members of the staff/teachers teaching upto 10th class are receiving the scales sanctioned for the posts against which they are working. The respondents also prayed that the expenses so incurred should be apportioned by the Chandigarh Administration and the Management of the institution in the ratio of 95% and 5% as is being done between the State Government and Management of the institution Aided Schools.

2. The claim of the respondents was refuted by the appellants mainly on the ground that permission to open the 11th and 12th classes in the school was subject to the condition that no grant-in-aid will be provided for additional staff and therefore the claim of the respondents for parity of salary with their counter parts in other aided institutions cannot be accepted.

3. The High Court, on consideration of the case of the parties and the contentions raised on their behalf allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents who are appellants herein to pay the same salary to the petitioners/respondents 1 to 13 herein, which is being paid to their counter parts in the privately managed government aided schools in Chandigarh and the expenses so incurred be apportioned by the Chandigarh Administration and the Management in the ratio of 95% and 5% respectively. The judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this filed by Chandigarh Administration through Secretary, Education, its Finance Secretary and the Director of Public Instructions, School.

4. From the discussion in the impugned judgment it appears that the writ petitioners pressed their claim mainly on the principle of equal pay for equal work. They also made a grievance about discriminatory treatment meted out to them by the Chandigarh Administration and the Management. The appellents on the other hand refuted the claim, as noted earlier, on the ground of conditional grant of permission to open the higher secondary classes and paucity of funds to meet the additional burden in case the prayer in their writ petition is allowed. Substantially, the same position was repeated during the hearing of the case in this court. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that under the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 78

Cases Referred (4)