2011 (8) TMI 1382 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of teachers in private unaided minority schools to salary and allowances at par with government and government-aided school teachers.
2. The applicability of Article 14 and Article 39(d) of the Constitution to private unaided minority schools.
3. The enforceability of conditions stipulated by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations and recommendations of the Education Commission.
4. The role of statutory provisions and executive instructions in determining salary and allowances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Teachers in Private Unaided Minority Schools to Salary and Allowances at Par with Government and Government-aided School Teachers:
The appellants argued that teachers in private unaided minority schools should receive salaries and allowances comparable to their counterparts in government and government-aided schools. They cited previous judgments and statutory provisions to support their claim. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that private unaided minority schools are not obligated to pay salaries equivalent to government and government-aided school teachers. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that teachers in government and government-aided schools are funded by the government, whereas private unaided minority schools rely on fees and other private resources.

2. The Applicability of Article 14 and Article 39(d) of the Constitution to Private Unaided Minority Schools:
The appellants contended that denying equal pay for equal work to teachers in private unaided minority schools violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 39(d) (Equal Pay for Equal Work) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Article 14 is applicable against the State and not against private unaided minority schools, which are not considered 'State' under Article 12. Similarly, Article 39(d) imposes obligations on the State, not on private entities. Therefore, the teachers of private unaided minority schools cannot claim equal pay under these constitutional provisions.

3. The Enforceability of Conditions Stipulated by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations and Recommendations of the Education Commission:
The appellants referred to the conditions of provisional affiliation by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, which stipulate that the salary and allowances of staff should be comparable to those prescribed by the State Department of Education. They also cited the Education Commission's recommendation for parity in pay scales across different managements. The Supreme Court ruled that these conditions and recommendations are not statutory provisions or executive instructions enforceable by law. Therefore, they cannot be the basis for issuing a mandamus to enforce equal pay.

4. The Role of Statutory Provisions and Executive Instructions in Determining Salary and Allowances:
The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of statutory provisions or executive instructions mandating equal pay, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to private unaided schools. The Court referred to previous cases where statutory or executive directives were necessary to enforce such claims. The Court highlighted that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, empowers the State Government to prescribe the salary and allowances of teachers, and urged the State to consider making rules under this Act to address the issue of equal pay.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, stating that private unaided minority schools are not obligated to pay salaries and allowances equivalent to government and government-aided school teachers. The Court clarified that constitutional provisions like Article 14 and Article 39(d) apply to the State and not to private unaided minority schools. The Court also noted the lack of statutory provisions or executive instructions enforceable in law to mandate such parity in pay. The appeal was disposed of with observations encouraging the State Government to consider making rules under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, to address the issue of salary and allowances of teachers.