SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Kar) 282

Karnataka High Court
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Appellant
Versus
B.R.CHOWDAPPA - Respondent
Decided On : 05-30-98
W.A. : 1833 of 1995

Advocates:
B.M.SIDDAPPA, BASAVA PRABHU S.PATIL, DESAI AND CO., G.G.CHAGASHETTY, HEMATATHA MAHISHI, I.R.BIRADAR, K.I.BHATTA, K.O.VIJAYAKUMAR, K.SUBBA RAO, K.VISHVANATHA RAO, M.A.SEBASTIAN, M.S.ANADARAMU, M.V.HIREMATH, M.V.MANJUNATH, MAHESHWARASWAMY HIREMATH, MOHAN SHANTANA GOUDAR, PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, R.B.SADASHIVAPPA, R.PADMANABHAM, Ravivanna Kumar, S.P.KULAKARNI, S.P.SHANKAR, Vagdevi Associates, VIJAYASHANKAR ASSOCIATES

Private educational institutions cannot claim aid from the state as a matter of right, except for recognized primary educational institutions providing free education to children up to 14 years. The teaching and non-teaching staff should seek alternative remedies under the Education Act.

Headnote:

Grant of Aid - Educational Institutions - Grant-in-Aid Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the grant of aid under the Grant-in-Aid Code to private educational institutions for payment of staff salaries. The key legal provisions discussed include the Grant-in-Aid Code, Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1957, Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978, and the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the master and servant relationship, the discretionary nature of grant aid, and the constitutional obligation to provide free and compulsory education.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the grant of aid under the Grant-in-Aid Code to private educational institutions for payment of staff salaries. The court analyzed the master and servant relationship, entitlement to financial aid, discrimination in grant of aid, and the constitutional obligation to provide education.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that private educational institutions cannot claim aid from the state as a matter of right, except for recognized primary educational institutions providing free education to children up to 14 years. The court also held that the teaching and non-teaching staff cannot maintain writ petitions and should seek alternative remedies under the Education Act. Additionally, the court directed the state to frame rules for fees and reimburse educational expenditure for children up to 14 years.

Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of private educational institutions and staff to claim financial aid, discrimination in grant of aid, and the constitutional obligation to provide free and compulsory education.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that private educational institutions cannot claim aid as a matter of right, except for recognized primary educational institutions providing free education to children up to 14 years. The teaching and non-teaching staff were directed to seek alternative remedies under the Education Act. The court also emphasized the state's obligation to provide free education and directed the state to frame rules for fees and reimburse educational expenditure for children up to 14 years.

Final Decision: The writ petitions filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff were dismissed as not maintainable, and the writ appeals were disposed of with directions to the state to frame rules for fees and reimburse educational expenditure for children up to 14 years.

SETHI, J.

( 1 ) IN this batch of Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions, the question involved pertains to grant of aid under the Grant-in-Aid Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to the educational institutions run by the private managements for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff, whose appointments have been approved by the Government under the Code.

( 2 ) WHILE in some of the Writ Petitions filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff the prayer is for a mandamus to release the salary from the respective dates of approval of the appointments, in the writ Petitions filed by the managements of private educational institution the petitioners are aggrieved by the discriminatory action of the State Government in the matter of grant of aid. The Writ appeal are filed by the State and the Educational Department being aggrieved by the directions issued in the Writ Petitions for release of salary or grant, as the case may be.

( 3 ) THE contention of the Government is that the staff are being appointed by the respective managements of the Schools and the relationship between the managements and the staff is that of master and servant and therefore the state is not liable to pay the salary of the staff. It is further contended that the aid is given under the Code only to the managements and not to the teachers. The points that are raised for consideration by the State are: a) Whether the staff (teaching and non-teaching) working in educational institutions run by private managements can maintain writ Petitions to claim financial aid from the State Government in the absence of master and servant relationship? b) Whether the managements of private educational institutions can claim financial aid as a matter of right? c) Whether the Private educational institutions which are admitted to grant-in-aid under the code are entitled to claim the grant from the dates of their establishment merely because they have completed the eligibility under the Code or the relevant government order? d) Whether the private educational institutions or the staff are entitled to claim financial grant from the dates of the appointment of the staff when their appointment are approved subsequently? e) Whether the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Code, which is in the nature of executive instructions, would confer a right upon the private educational institutions to claim financial grant from the Government?

( 4 ) THE managements of the educational institutions have sought for a Writ of mandamus to the State Government to admit their educational institutions to grant-in-aid and to grant aid to run the schools to impart education to the students. Which is the function of the Government. It is contended that under Article 45 of the constitution of India, it is one of the Directive principles of the State to give education to the students and since the Government has not been discharging the said constitutional obligation, the same is being discharged by the private educational institutions by obtaining recognition from the Government. It is stated that the state has been discriminating in admitting the private educational institutions to gra eventhough recognition was obtained under the Code. According to the managements, the Government is selecting certain managements for granting the aid under the Code and this action is a clear of discrimination.

( 5 ) IN the Writ Petitions filed by the staff it is contended that the private educational institutions in which they are working are recognised under the Code and the institutions having satisfied the eligibility criteria for admitting to grant, they are entitled for salary grant. According to them, the educational institutions are under the administrative, supervisory and financial control of the State government under the relevant provisions of the repealed Karnataka private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1957 (Which is hereinafter referred to as 'the PEI Act') an































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top