IMPORTANT POINT
The enforcement of service conditions in private unaided schools affiliated with CBSE is governed by contractual obligations, and disputes arising from such conditions do not invoke public law elements necessary for writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order in W.P.No.30711 of 2003 dated 28.11.2014.

This appeal has been directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge Bench, in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution by dismissing the writ petition in W.P.No.30711 of 2003 dated 28.11.2014.

2. The appellant herein stood as the writ petitioner. Her case is that, she is a Post Graduate in English with M.Ed qualification and she joined in the second respondent School on 18.06.1990 with ten years of previous experience in teaching high school students. The second respondent school is affiliated to the first respondent Board and her pay was fixed at Rs.1,743/- in the pay scale of Rs.1200- 2040/-, which was the pay scale as fixed by the State Government. The appellant/petitioner was given appointment in the second respondent school by an appointment order dated 18.06.1990.

3. It is the further case of the appellant / petitioner that the service conditions of the teacher working in the school affiliated to the CBSE Board are governed by the affiliation bye-laws framed by the first respondent. As per Section 3(iii)(b) of the Affiliation Bye-laws, salary and allowances payable to the teacher shall not be less than the corresponding category in the State Government schools or as prescribed by the Government of India. It is the further case of the appellant / petitioner that the second respondent school, even though fixed the pay scale for her while she joined the service of the School on par with the teachers in the State Government schools, however failed to follow the same in the next coming years.

4. Therefore, in order to correctly fix the salary payable to the appellant / petitioner on par with the teachers who are working in the State Government schools, the petitioner/appellant had filed a writ petition seeking for a writ of Mandamus and that writ petition in W.P.No.23580 of 2003 was disposed of by an order dated 25.08.2003, where a direction was given to consider the representation given by the petitioner / teacher concerned / appellant herein dated 30.07.2001. Only pursuant to the said direction given by this Court in the first round of litigation, the representation of the petitioner having been considered, was rejected through the order dated 06.10.2003 by the second respondent school. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition in W.P.No.30711 of 2003 was filed. The said writ petition since has been rejected through the order impugned, it became necessitated for the appellant / petitioner to file the present appeal.

5. Heard Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / petitioner who would submit that, insofar as the second respondent school is concerned, it is a CBSE ie., first respondent Board affiliated school. The Bye-laws of Affiliation ie., CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws governs the functioning of the schools affiliated to the first respondent Board, where Section 7 of the Bye-laws made it clear that, to pay the salaries to the teachers and other categories of staff regularly at least on par with the corresponding categories of the State Government schools, financial reserve shall be continuously maintained by the Management of the school concerned. In Section 10(3) of the Bye-laws, it has been made clear that the school should have well defined conditions of service as per the norms of the State / Union Territory Government and to issue letters of appointment to the employees at the time of joining service and should also sign a contract of service. The contract should be similar to the format given in Appendix-III.

6. Relying upon these clauses, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, only in consonance with the said bye-laws, a contract has been entered into between the school and the teacher ie., the appellant / petitioner and the second respondent and that is how in the very appointment order itself dated