The decision establishes that AICTE norms govern pay scales for technical school employees, distinct from the MEPS Act, ensuring enforcement without requiring amendments to existing rules.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

NITIN JAMDAR, J. - These petitions filed by employees of the respondent technical schools regarding their pay scales were placed before the Division Bench for consideration. Upon hearing the parties, the Division Bench concluded that, on the legal issues, there was a divergence of view between the Coordinate Benches of this Court. The Division Bench, by order dtd. 14/6/2022, after framing issues for consideration, directed the Registry to place the petitions before the learned Chief Justice to consider constituting a Larger Bench for resolving the conflict. The Division Bench framed the following questions for consideration :

<WXY>"a. Whether the Division Bench decision in the case of Mahadeo More (supra) is applicable to the teaching and nonteaching employees of all the categories of the institutions covered under the definition of "School" provided under Sec. 2(24) of the MEPS Act.? b. Whether it could be said that the view in the case of Mahadeo More (supra) is not a correct view? And if yes, could it be said that the decision in the case of the Teachers Association (supra) expresses a correct view? c. Whether in the light of observations made by the Division Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Amrutraj Pratapji Vyas (supra), can it be said that the Judgment of the Division Bench at Nagpur in Mahadeo More (supra) is no longer a good law?

d. Whether there is a repugnance in the provisions of AICTE Act and the provisions of MEPS Act and MEPS Rules on the subject ? If not, then whether strict compliance of the provisions of Sec. 16 and 4 of the MEPS Act and Rule 7 of MEPS Rules and the amendment to Schedule "C" is necessary for making the pay scales recommended by the AICTE applicable to the employees governed by MEPS Act and MEPS Rules?"</WXY>

Thereafter the Petitions are placed before this full Bench for answering the above Reference.

2. Two enactments govern the issue at hand. First, the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 framed thereunder. Second, All India Council For Technical Education Act, 1987 and the Regulations, instructions and orders issued by the All India Council For Technical Education. Then there are Government Resolutions issued by the State of Maharashtra on the subject matter.

3. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, was enacted to regulate recruitment and conditions of service of the employees in certain private schools in the State. The legislature was of the view that providing such employees security and stability in service would enable them to discharge their duties effectively and efficiently towards the pupils and their guardians in particular, and the institution and the society in general. Sec. 2 of the MEPS Act contains definitions of the phrases employed in the Act. As per sec. 2(7), an employee means any teaching and non-teaching staff of a recognized school, including an Assistant Teacher probationary. The phrase 'prescribed' as per Sec. 2(17) means prescribed by the Rules.

4. Sec. 2(24) of the MEPS Act which defines 'School' is of importance. This provision reads thus:

<WXY>"2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (24) "School" means a primary school, secondary school, higher secondary school, junior c