Important Point: Where a statutory provision casts a duty on a private aided school to pay similar salary and allowances to its teachers, as are being paid to the teachers of government aided schools, then a writ of mandamus could be issued to enforce such statutory duty.

Sangitrao S. Patil, J.

Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and the learned A.G.P., heard finally.

2. The common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions. Hence, they are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Writ Petition Nos. 1893/2014, 1921/2014, 3522/2016, 7519/2016, 8010/2016, 9203/2016 and 10652/2016 have been filed by the Assistant Teachers (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”) against the Educational Institutions (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”), in which they are serving, while Writ Petition No. 6546/2016 has been filed by one of the Institutions against the Deputy Director of Education and four of the Assistant Teachers. From the pleadings of the parties as well as the reliefs claimed in the above numbered writ petitions, it would be clear that the central point for consideration is “whether unaided private schools and/or minority unaided private schools are under an obligation to ensure equal pay to the petitioners to that of their counterparts serving in the Government schools or private aided schools. Considering the rival pleadings as well as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, the following points fall for our determination :-

(i) Whether the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“the Act of 1977”, for short) and the Rules of 1981 made under the said Act, so far as the pay scales of the teachers are concerned, are applicable to the Minority or Non-minority Private Unaided Schools ?

(ii) Whether the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2016 (“the Amended Rules of 2016”, for short) are enforceable ?

(iii) Whether the Writ Petitions filed by the Assistant Teachers are maintainable ?

(iv) Whether the doctrine of contracting out would assist the Educational Institutions in denying the same pay scales to the Assistant Teachers, which are payable to their counterparts under the provisions of the Act of 1977 and the Rules of 1981 ?

Point No. (i) :

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as per subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1977, the provisions of the said Act apply to all private schools in the State of Maharashtra, whether receiving any grantinaid from the State Government or not. They further submit that Section 4 of the Act of 1977 read with Rule 6 of the Rules of 1981 also do not make any distinction between aided and unaided schools or minority or non-minority schools in respect of the pay scales given in Schedule `C' of the Rules of 1981.

5. On the other hand, Mr. R.F. Totla, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Minority Educational Institution submits that the said provisions are not applicable to the Minority Unaided Educational Institutions. The learned counsel appearing for the non-Minority Educational Institutions also submit that the private unaided schools cannot be forced to pay the same salary to their teachers which is being paid to the teachers working in the Government schools or private aided schools.

6. The sum and substance of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the minority or non-minority private unaided schools are not bound by the provisions of the Act of 1977 and the Rules of 1981 so far as the pay scales are concerned.

7. The learned counsel for both the contesting parties have relied on the judgment in the case of Mahadeo s/o Pandurang More and others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and others 2014 (5) Mh.L.J. 877. In the said case, point No. (i), referred to above, was under consideration of the Division Bench of Nagpur Bench of this Court. The Division bench considered various judgments of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, which have been cited by the learned counsel for the parties before us also and answered the said point in the affirmati