9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Comparison of pay scales and conditions of service between Frank Anthony Public School and Delhi Administration Schools. 2. Constitutionality of Section 12 of the Delhi School Education Act under Articles 14, 21, and 23. 3. Applicability of Sections 8 to 11 of the Delhi School Education Act to unaided minority schools. 4. The impact of regulatory measures on the fundamental rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Summary: Issue 1: Comparison of Pay Scales and Conditions of Service The judgment highlights the disparity in pay scales and conditions of service between teachers and employees of Frank Anthony Public School and those in Delhi Administration Schools. For example, primary school teachers in government schools receive a starting salary and allowances totaling Rs. 1540 per month, whereas their counterparts at Frank Anthony Public School receive Rs. 977.50. The judgment notes that employees of Frank Anthony Public School lag far behind in terms of emoluments and conditions of service. Issue 2: Constitutionality of Section 12 of the Delhi School Education Act The Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association sought a declaration that Section 12 of the Delhi School Education Act is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. Section 12 exempts unaided minority schools from the provisions of Sections 8 to 11, which regulate terms and conditions of service for employees of recognized private schools. The court found Section 12 discriminatory and void, except to the extent that it makes Section 8(2) inapplicable to unaided minority institutions. Issue 3: Applicability of Sections 8 to 11 to Unaided Minority Schools Sections 8 to 11 of the Delhi School Education Act provide for regulations on the minimum qualifications for recruitment, conditions of service, and disciplinary actions for employees of recognized private schools. The court held that these sections, except Section 8(2), do not encroach upon the rights of minorities to administer their educational institutions and are permissible regulations aimed at ensuring the excellence of educational institutions. Issue 4: Impact of Regulatory Measures on Fundamental Rights under Article 30(1) The court examined whether the regulatory measures under Sections 8 to 11 impinge upon the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which allows minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The court concluded that the regulatory measures aimed at attracting competent staff and ensuring the excellence of educational institutions do not violate Article 30(1). The court cited previous judgments to support the view that conditions of service, including pay scales and allowances, are permissible regulatory measures that do not detract from the fundamental right to administer educational institutions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court declared Section 12 of the Delhi School Education Act discriminatory and void, except for making Section 8(2) inapplicable to unaided minority institutions. The court directed the Union of India and the Delhi Administration to enforce the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 8(2)) in the case of Frank Anthony Public School. The management was also directed not to give effect to the orders of suspension passed against the staff members.
|
