Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.D. TULZAPURKAR, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND D.P. MADON, JJ.
Prabodh Verma and others, etc. etc. Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, etc. Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 694, 909, 911, 912, 2307 of 1980 & 2931-32 of 1979 and 4 of 1981 with Writ Petn. Nos. 1221-29, 1235, 1340-41, 1498, 1572 1681-82 of 1979 & 22, 203, 363 of 1980 and 1687, 4334 of 1981 and 9065, 9863, 10773-76 of 1983, D/-27-7-1984.
AND
Dal Chand and others, etc, etc. Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, etc. Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. T. U. Mehta, Sr. Advocate, M/s. S. K. Sabharwal and D. R. Gupta, Advocates with him (in C. A. No. 694 of 1980); Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. S. Jauhar, Advocate with him (in C. A. Nos. 2931-32 of 1979) and Mr. D. R. Gupta, and Mr. P. K. Chakravarty, Advocates (in C. A. Nos. 909, 911, 912, of 1980 and 2307 of 1980) for Appellants. Mr. D. R. Gupta, Mr. P. K. Chakravarty and Mr. S. S. Jouahar, Advocates (in W. P. Nos. 1221-1229, 1340-41, 1681-82, 2931-32 of 1979) 170 and Mr. Anit Dev Singh and Mr. S. K. Sabharwal, Advocates (in W. P. No. 1235 of 1979) for Petitioners. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Advocates for the State of U. P.; Mr. R. K. Garg, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R. K. Jain and Mr. P. K. Jain, Advocates with him for Respondent. Mr. E. C. Aggarwala, and Mr. M. M. Srivastava, Advocates for Respondent No. 12. Dr. Meera Agarwal and Mr. R. C. Misra, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 8 and 4 (In C. A. No. 912 of 1980 and W. P. No. 4334 of 1981). Mr. Shivpujan Singh, Advocate for Appellant in C. A. No. 4 of 1981. Mr. S. Markandeya, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 7 in C. A. No. 4/81. M/s R. K. Jain, Ravi Prakash Gupta and R. P. Singh, Advocates for Respondent No. 12 in C. A. No. 4 of 1981.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 – Section 3, 7, 7-A, 2(b), 15, 16-A - Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 and 16(1), 123, 213, 213(2)(a), 226, 225, 213(2)(b), 213, 32, 161(1) - Uttar Pradesh Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1966 – Section 3(1),(2) - Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges Act, 1971 – Section 4 (4) - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 30, 3(54) - Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 - Lord Broughams Act of 1850 - Section 2 - Interpretation of Acts, 1850 - Interpretation Act, 1978 - Indian Councils Act, 1861 – Section 23 - Government of India Act, 1915 – Section 72 - Constitutional Validity - Teachers - Lecturers - Reliefs Entitled - Principal question which arises for determination in this group of appeals by Special Leave and Writ Petitions is constitutional validity of two Uttar Pradesh Ordinances, namely, Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges Ordinance, 1978 and its successor Ordinance - Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges Ordinance, 1978 which had been-struck down by a Division Beach of High Court by its judgment delivered on, in Civil Miscellaneous Writ - Whether termination of services of Appellants and Petitioners as secondary school teachers and intermediate college lecturers following upon said High Court judgment is valid and, if not, reliefs to which they are entitled - Whether these demands or any of them were reasonable or not, nor with question whether refusal of Government to accept said demands or any of them was justified or not - Whether such strike is declared or commenced before or after commencement of order - Whether there is any intelligible differentia which distinguishes teachers put in reserve pool by Ordinance from other applicants for posts of teachers in recognized institutions - Whether this differentia which distinguishes reserve pool teachers from other applicants for posts of teachers in recognized institutions has a rational relation to object sought to be achieved by U. P. Ordinances – Held, It would not be fair to make State pay such costs because that would be to penalize State for respecting judgment of High Court by not filing an appeal against it - It would equally be not fair to penalize Committee of Management of recognized institutions because they only acted under directions of State Government to terminate services of reserve pool teachers - Party which ought properly to pay costs of these appeals and writ petitions is Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh - In view, however, of fact that during course of hearing of these appeals and writ petitions reserve pool teachers or a large majority of them including appellants and petitioners have become members of this Sangh to direct Sangh to pay costs would be to create bad blood between Sangh and some of its members - A fair order of costs would therefore be that so far as appeals are concerned parties should bear and pay their own costs through out and that so far as writ petitions are concerned parties should bear and pay their own costs - Our insisting upon these petitions being so amended would, however, involve delay and as some of these petitioners are reserve pool teachers who were not appointed by reason of interim orders passed by High Court and judgment of that High Court in Sanghs case, it would result in further hardship to them by delaying their employment – Court have therefore, not insisted upon these writ petitions being so amended but passed in these writ petitions also, order set out above - Order accordingly.
Judgment
MADON, J.:- The principal question which arises for determination in this group of appeals by Special Leave and Writ Petitions is the constitutional validity of two Uttar Pradesh Ordinances, namely, (1) the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinance, 1978 (U. P. Ordinance No. 10 of 1978), and (2) its successor Ordinance - The Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) (Second) Ordinance, 1978 (U. P. Ordinance No. 22 of 1978), which had been-struck down by a Division Beach of the Allahabad High Court by its judgment delivered on December 22, 1978, in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 9174 of 1978 - Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1979 All LJ 178 - on the ground that its provisions were violative of Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India; the subsidiary . questions being whether the termination of the services of the Appellants and Petitioners as secondary school teachers and intermediate college lecturers following upon the said Allahabad High Court judgment is valid and, if not, the reliefs to which they are entitled.
2. We will first set out the circumstances which led, to the promulgation of the above two Ordinances and then narrate the events subsequent thereto.
3. The educational institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh teaching up to the high school and intermediate classes fall into three categories, namely.
(1) institutions manged and conducted by the Central Government;
(2) institutions managed and conducted by the State Government and local bodies; and
(3) institutions managed and conducted by private management.
4. The service conditions of the teachers in these three of institutions are governed by different statutes. We are concerned in these Appeals and Petitions with only the teachers failing in the, third category mentioned above. These institutions are governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (U. P. Act No. II of 1921). Clause (b) of S. 2 of the Intermediate Education Act defines an institution as meaning "a recognised Intermediate College, Higher Secondary School or High School, and includes, where the context so requires, a part of an institution". S. 3 provides for the constitution of a Board, called the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. S. 7 prescribes the powers of the Board, which inter alia include the power to prescribe the courses of instruction and text-books, to conduct examinations at the end of High School and Intermediate courses and to recognize institutions for the purposes of such examinations. Under S. 7-A, an order of the Board giving recognition to an institution for the first time or in any new, subject or Board group or for a higher class is, not to have effect until it is approved by the State Government. S. 15 confers upon the Board the power to make Regulations inter alia providing for the conditions of recognitions of institutions. Regulations made by the Board under S. 15 are required to be made with the previous sanction of the State Government and to be published in the Uttar Pradesh Official Gazette.
5. All the institutions falling in the third category mentioned above and with which we are concerned in these Appeals and Petitions are recognized under the Intermediate Education Act. S. 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act requires a Scheme of Administration to be framed for every recognized institution. The Scheme of Administration of every institution is to be subject to the approval of the Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh. A Scheme of Administration is amongst other matters to provide for the constitution of a committee of Management vested with authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. Under sub-sec. (6) of S. 16-A, every. recognized institution is to be managed in accordance with its Scheme of Administration.
6. S. 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act prescribes the procedure for selection of teachers and heads
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
