All Goa Private Schools Pre-Primary and Primary Teachers Association & others vs State of Goa & others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1989 Supreme(Bom) 318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(PANAJI BENCH)
Mohta V.A. Couto G.F. (Dr.), JJ.
All Goa Private Schools Pre-Primary and
Primary Teachers’ Association others .... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Goa others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 302 of 1988, decided on 7/8-11-1989.
Advocates appeared :
J. Dias with S. Albuqerque, for petitioners.
V.B. Nadkarni, A.G. with A.C. Navelkar, for respondent No. 1.
James Siqueira with J. Coelho Pareira, for respondent No. 2, 3 5.
B.F. D’Souza, for respondent No. 4.

Headnote:Sections 11 (2), 14 and 22 (1) (e) -Validity of- It Is ultra vires except to extent it makes inapplicable Section II (2) to unaided minority school-Appeal under Section 22 (1) (e) Appeal by employee of unaided minority school not maintainable.
       Does no appeal lie under Section 22 (1) (e) of the Goa Act at the behest of an employee of an unaided minority school in the face of Section 14. Answer to the question will have to be recorded in the negative taking into consideration the words "under sub-section (2) of Section 11" appearing at the end of Section 22 (1) (a) and the provisions of Section 17 which specify various conditions in the Contract of service including of settlement of any dispute arising out of any breach of contract inter alia with relation to disciplinary action leading to imposition of any punishment. There was also a debate as to whether an appeal by an employee of an aided minority school is maintainable under Section 22 (1) (e) since his case is governed by Section 11 (5) which is not specifically mentioned in Section 23 (1) (e). Reading Section 11 as a whole and taking into consideration the spirit of the scheme of appellate provision, Court sees no doubt in the right of appeal of such an employee. Section 11 (5) merely substitutes a different embargo upon disciplinary power of management of an aided minority school in place of embargo mentioned in Section 11 (2).
       In the result, Section 14 of the constitution except to the extent it makes in applicable Section (2) to unaided minority school.

JUDGMENT - MOHTA V.A., J.:—The Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 ('the Goa Act') aims at providing for better organisation and development of School Education in the State of Goa. Chapter IV of the said Act which contains sections 11 to 14, deals with the subject of terms and conditions of service of employees of recognised Private Schools. Sub-section (1) of section 11 empowers the Government to make Rules for regulating the recruitment, minimum qualifications for recruitment, and other conditions of service. Sub-section (2) mandates that the recognised private school shall not dismiss or terminate the service of an employee without the prior approval of the Director, but subject to the rule that may be made in this behalf. Sub-sections (3) and (4) create certain embargo on management's power of suspension pending enquiry. Sub-section (5) mandates that aided minority school shall not dismiss or terminate the services of an employees except after an inquiry in accordance with the procedure specified in the Rule. Section 12 specified that the employees are governed by a Code of Conduct which may be prescribed. Section 13 specifies that the scales of pay and allowances, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of recognised private schools shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the Government. Section 14 makes inapplicable all these provisions to an unaided minority school. The question raised in this petition on behalf of employees of unaided Minority Schools is whether section 14 is arbitrary/discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India ?

2. Short undisputed factual background is this :-

Petitioner No. 1 is an Association of Pre-Primary and Primary Teachers in the State and petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are its office bearers/members. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Goa. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the Education Institutions established and administered by minority. Under their aegis pre-primary and primary education is also imparted for which they are not entitled to receive grant-in-aid from the Government. Basic pay of these teachers ranges between Rs. 165/- to Rs. 400/- per month whereas the Government scale for teachers of corresponding status is Rs. 1,200/- per month approximately. Respondents defend section 14 on the basis of right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions contained in Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

3. Having heard Mr. Dias, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Siqueria, the learned Advocate-General we are satisfied that section 14 cannot stand the scrutiny of Article 14, except to a limited extent of making inapplicable section 11(2) to an unaided minority school. Indeed our task is easy. The point appears to be no more res integra in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India and others)1, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 311 relating to the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 ('the Delhi Act'), the relevant basic scheme of which appears to be in no way different than that of the Goa Act. Equivalence of relevant sections can be put thus :-

The Delhi Act The Goa Act

Section 8(1) = Section 11(1)

" 8(2) = " 11(2)

" 8(3) = " 22

"8(4), (5) = " 11(3), (4)

" 9 = " 12

"10 = " 13

"12 = " 14

" 13 to 15 = " 15 to 17

We may mention that section 8(3) of the Delhi Act and section 22 of the Goa Act are provisions relating to employees right of appeal and sections 13 to 15 of the Delhi Act and sections 15 to 17 of the Goa Act are provisions applicable to unaided minority schools.

4. Section 8(1) of the Delhi Act, which merely empowers the Administrator to make Rules regulating the minimum qualifications for recruitment, and the conditions of service of recognised private schools has been held t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1989 Supreme(Bom) 318

Cases Referred (1)