The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government complied with the court's order to revisit and reframe the policy, and the applicants did not qualify the test of composite integrality.

JUDGMENT :

1. The applicants, who are eight in numbers before this Court along with applicants of three other connected matters, approached the writ Court challenging the Government Order dated 27th October, 2016 issued by State Government as well as order dated 13th July, 2017 issued by State Government along with the individual orders against the applicants and the concerned Educational Institution. The writ petitions were classified into four categories being Group A, B, C and D.

2. The main challenge, which was put before the writ Court by the applicants, who are teachers in recognized and unaided Primary Sections attached Junior High Schools/High Schools and Intermediate Colleges; recognized and unaided Junior High School; recognized and unaided Primary Schools; and, unaided Primary Schools with unaided Junior High School, were that they had been denied benefit of protection of either the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1971”) or the Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1978”).

3. All the writ petitions were clubbed together and heard by the writ Court taking Writ -A No.38992 of 2017 (Jai Ram Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) being the leading case.

4. The parties before the writ Court agreed that the individual facts of an Institution and its teachers need not be examined. The writ Court confined itself to the validity of the policy decisions of the State Government as embodied in the order dated 27th October, 2016 and 13th July, 2017. The writ Court after examining the issue in depth, disposed of the bunch of petitions vide judgment dated 23rd May, 2019 in terms of the following directions :

“Accordingly and for the reasons aforementioned, these petitions stand disposed of on the following terms:-

Clause 1 of the Government Order dated 27 October 2016 to the extent of prescribing the cut off date of 21 June 1973 as well as Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 thereof are struck down as being as arbitrary and wholly irrational. The State shall in consequence revisit and reframe the impugned Policy in light of the observations made in this judgment. The orders of 13 July 2017 insofar as they defer reconsideration for a period of five years consequentially stand set aside to that extent.

Writ Petitions in Group A insofar as they relate to primary sections attached to recognised and aided high schools or intermediate colleges covered by the provisions of the 1971 Act cannot be denied the protection of that statute. The petitions in this group falling under the aforesaid class shall stand allowed. The State is consequently directed to bring teachers falling in this class within the ambit of the 1971 Act subject to the requisite exercise being undertaken to assess that they satisfy the test of composite integrality.

Writ Petitions in Group A relating to primary sections attached to junior high schools are not covered under the provisions of the 1978 Act. No relief can be granted to them in light of the 2017 Amendments. The petitions preferred at their instance shall stand disposed of subject to liberty being reserved to challenge the 2017 Amendments as introduced in the 1972 and 1978 Acts, if so chosen and advised.

Writ Petitions falling in Group B are allowed. The State shall in consequence reconsider their claims for grant in aid in light of the policy that may be framed in light of the directions issued herein above.

While Writ Petitions falling in Group C to the extent that they assailed the Government Order dated 27 October 2016 are disposed of in light of the directions issued above, no further consequential relief can be granted presently in their favour in the absence of a challenge to the 2017 Amendments introduced in the 1972 and 1978 Acts. Their right to assail these amendments is preserved to be raised in independent proceedings. Si