The distinction between Government and privately managed schools is a reasonable and valid classification, and the Punjab Act and Central Service Rules govern the service conditions of teaching faculty in Government aided schools.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

Factual Background

1. The petitioner herein is working as a Hindi Mistress with respondent No. 6 i.e. DAV Senior Secondary School, Sector-8 Chandigarh, which is a Government Aided School. The petitioner is averred to attain the age of 58 years, on 31.12.2023. She is aggrieved against her proposed retirement at the age of 58 years, despite the fact that all the teaching and non teaching staff, thus working in the Government Schools of U.T., Chandigarh, are permitted to serve till the age of 60 years, given the superannuation age rather standing enhanced to 60 years, owing to the adoption/applicability vide notification dated 29.03.2022 of the Central Pattern of Rules in U.T. Chandigarh.

2. In the writ petition (supra), a challenge has been also made to notification dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure P-11). The said challenge is grooved in the factum, that it denies the apposite parity to the petitioner, who is serving in a private educational institution but aided by the Union of India, thereby it creates an invidious discrimination with the petitioner's counterparts, rather serving in Government Schools, in respect of whom rather a beneficial notification (supra) became issued.

3. Furthermore, a prayer is also made for the quashing and setting aside of the communication dated 08.08.2022 (Annexure P-10), as, issued by the Chandigarh Administration, whereby the request of the co-respondent No. 6-D.A.V. Senior Secondary School (Lahore) Sector 8- C, Chandigarh, seeking guidance with regard to retirement age, in the grant-in-aid schools, has been rejected, thus, in complete transgression of the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022 (Annexure P-9).

4. The said challenge is grooved in the factum, that it has been made applicable, only to the employees/teachers, serving in the Govt. Schools under the Chandigarh Administration, whereas, the Chandigarh Administration rather has accepted and implemented, the recommendations of the Kothari Commission, hence relating to the age of superannuation as 60 years, of the teaching faculty, and, of the non teaching employees, serving in Government aided schools in the Union Territory, Chandigarh.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a claim for grant of the writ reliefs inter-alia on the following submissions:

(i) That the teaching faculty in the respondent school has been invidiously discriminated, through the drawing of Annexure P-11, despite Annexure P-9 detailing therein, the conditions of service of persons appointed to the services and posts under the administrative control of Administrator, and, which but are applicable to the teaching faculty of Government run schools, wherebys, the age of superannuation would be governed.

(ii) That since the teaching faculty in schools aided through grants made by the Union of India, thus perform similar or alike functions, to the teaching faculty which are governed by Annexure P-9. Resultantly, it is argued that with parity of rendition of services by teaching faculty in Government run schools, and, by the teaching faculty in schools aided by grants made by the Union of India, thereby, but necessarily same or similar conditions of service, were to be assigned, to the teaching faculty serving in schools aided through grants being made by the Government of India. If the said parity is not ensured thereby there would be perpetration of an invidious discrimination vis-a-vis the petitioner, besides thereby it would cause violation to the constitutional norm of equality, as contemplated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) That since prior to 1991, the teachers of the Government aided privately manged schools in the Union Territory, Chandigarh, thus were governed by the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, rather in the matter of their service conditions. Moreover, when the age of superannuation of the teachers alike th