FRANK ANTHONY PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 17-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
FRANK ANTHONY PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 
ASSOCIATION 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 17, 1986 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Equal pay for equal work, principle as envisaged in section JO of 
~ 
c 
the Delhi School Education Act made inapplicable to an unaided 
minority school by section 12, thereof-Whether section 12 is hit by 
Articles I4, 2I and 23 of the Constitlltion-Whether sections 8 to I I -'"'{-
impinge on the right of the minorities to administer educational institu-
. 
tions of their choice envisaged in Articie 30 of the Constitution. 
Chapter IV of the Delhi School Education Act, comprising of 
sections 8 to 12 deal with "Terms and conditions of service of employees 
D 
of recognised private schools". Chapter V consisting of sections 13 to 15 
contains "the provisions applicable to unaided minority schools". Sec-
tion lil( I) specifically requires that, "the scales of pay and allowances, 
medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other pres-
cribed benefits of the employees of a recognised private school shall not 
be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in 
E 
schools run by the appr;,priale authority". But section l2 provides, 
"Nothing contained in this Chapter shall apply to an unaided minority 
school." Chapter V contains certain provisions relating to unaided 
minority schools. 
The effect of section 12 of the Act is to make sections 8. 9. I 0 and I I 
F 
inapplicable to unaided minority schools: First, the Administrator may 
not make rules regulating the conditions of service of employees of 
unaided minority schools. But so far as the minimum qualifications for 
recruitment of employees are concerned, Section 13 enables the 
Administrator to make regulations even in respect of __ unaided minority 
· schools. Second, ti.~ prior approval of the Director need not be obtained 
G 
for the dismissal, removal. reduc:tion in rank or termination of service 
otherwise than hy dismissal or removal of an employee of an unaided 
minority sc'iool. Third. against such dismissal, removal or reduction in 
rank, there is to be no appeal. Fourth, neither prior nor subsequent 
approval of the Director need be obtained to suspend any of the emp-
loyees of an unaided minority school. Fifth, the scales of pay and allo-
H 
wances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other 
238 
--
-
i. -
F.A. PUBLIC SCHOOL v. UNION OF INDIA 
239 
benefits which may be given to employees are subject to no regulation 
A 
except that they should be contained in a written contract of service and 
need not conform to the scales of 11ay and _allowances etc. of the em-
ployees of the corresponding status in schools run hy the appropriate 
authority as in the case of other recognised private schools. 
Frank Anthony Public School is a recognised unaided minority 
school within the meaning ofsections 2(x) read with 2(e), 2(o) and 2(1) of 
the. Act. In the matter of emoluments and conditions of service such as 
leave etc., teachers and employees of the Frank Anthony Public School 
lag far behind the teachers and employees of Government schools. 
}-·several other conditions of service of teac~ers and employees also com-
• are unfavourably with the conditions of service of teachers and emp-
loyees of Government Schools. But for section 12 and if sections 8 to 11 
were applicable to them, they would at least be as well off as teachers 
B 
c 
and other employees of Government Schools. The Petitioner associa-
tion, therefore, has filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution, seeking equalisation of their pay scales and conditions of 
service with those of their counterparts in Government Schools and for 
D 
a declaration that section 12 of the Act is void and constitutionally 
invalid as offending Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. 
Sometime after the filing of the writ petition and before the pre-
liminary hearing of the writ petitions, some developments took place. · 
On May 9, 19!!6 at 10.30 A.M. during the daily school break between 10 
E 
A.M. and 10.40 A.M. the teaching staff other than one or two teachers 
who are required to be on duty, took out a .. silent march" which was 
joined by the Class IV Staff also. Except those on duty, all the others 
took part in the "silent march". Classes were resumed al 10.40 A.M. 
and were not affected in any manner. There were no speeches, no 
, --;-.\ shouting of slogans, no violence and no disruption of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.