( 1 ) EDUCATION is the substratum for development of any civilization. Progress of education requires discipline both amongst the teachers and taught. The absence in a large measure of both has been impediment in our country at least for the last couple of decades. This has resulted in both statutory enactments and judicial pronouncements setting the norms for the manner in which education both at school and higher levels is to be imparted.

( 2 ) THE Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the said Act) and the Rules enacted thereunder being The delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the said rules) came into being as a step in this direction. The preamble to the said Act states as under: an Act to provide for better organization and development of school education in the Union Territory of Delhi and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

( 3 ) THE Apex Court has had many occasions to deal with the various aspects arising from imparting of education in the country. These include matters such as admission criteria, fee structure, administration of institutions, qualification and requirement of teachers and lecturers and. their discipline and manner of employment. It is unfortunate that a fair amount of litigation has arisen on account of disputes between the management and the teaching staff in our country, which has resulted in its own jurisprudential development. There are both aided and unaided institutions. There are further rights of the minority institutions protected under the scheme of our Constitution. All these aspects have been commented upon by the Apex Court.

( 4 ) EDUCATION is discipline for adventure of life, said Alfred North Whitehead. The pre requisite naturally is that the teacher himself observes this discipline. The allegation of lack of such discipline and norms with counter allegations of motivated action against the teachers has given rise to this batch of writ petitions. The controversy, however before us, is limited. It is not necessary to go in depth into the facts and circumstances of each case in view of the larger issue raised, which has resulted in these matters being placed before the Bench of two Judges in view of the challenge to the validity of certain provisions of the said Act and the said Rules. The real basis of the challenge on behalf of the schools in question arises from pronouncements of a Constitution Bench of eleven Judges of the Supreme Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation and Ors. Vs. State of karnataka and Ors. , (2002) 8 SCC 481 = AIR 2003 SC 355. The Constitution Bench by a majority judgment decided various issues relating to education including rights of minority institutions, aided and unaided institutions both at school level and of higher learning.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the two institutions in question are not minority institutions and are unaided private institutions. The matter pertains and is limited to the issue of employment and removal of teachers at school level. Thus, it is not necessary to embark upon the wider discussion of T. M. A. Pai Foundation case (supra ). Thus, out of the questions framed and answered by the constitution Bench, only Questions 10 and 11 may be referred to, which are as under: q. 10. Whether the non-minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institution under Articles 21 and 29 (1) read with Articles 14 and 15 (1), in the same manner and to the same extent as minority institutions? and q. 11. What is the meaning of the expressions education and educational institutions in various provisions of the constitution? Is the right to establish and administer educational institutions guaranteed under the Constitutidn? a. The expression education in the articles of the Constitution means and includes education at all levels, from the primary school level up to the postgraduate level. It includes professional education. The exp