MRS. SATIMBLA SHARMA AND ORS. versus ST. PAULS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 11-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. [2011) 10 S.C.R. 203 
MRS. SATIMBLA SHARMA AND ORS. 
v. 
ST. PAUL'S SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2676 of 2010) 
AUGUST 11, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
8 
Equal pay for equal work - Claim for, by teachers of c 
private unaided schools - Held: Teachers of private unaided 
schools have no right to claim salary equal to that of their 
counter-parts working in Government Schools and 
Government aided schools -
Education/Educational 
Institutions. 
D 
Equal pay for equal work - Claim against private unaided 
minority schools - Held: Unaided private minority schools 
over which the Government has no administrative control 
because of their autonomy under Article 30(1) are not State 
within the meaning of Article 12 - As the right to equality 
E 
under Article 14 is available against the State, it cannot be 
claimed against unaided private minority schools -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 12, 14 30, 39(d). 
Writ: 
F 
Writ of mandamus - Issuance of, to a private unaideq .. 
school to pay salary and allowances to its teachers equal to · 
the salary and allowance payable to teachers of Government/ 
Government aided Schools - Held: Court cannot issue a 
mandamus since salary and allowances of a private unaided G 
scilool is a matter of contract between the school and the 
teacher and is not within the domain of public law - State 
Government directed to consider making rules u/ s.23 rlw 
203 
H 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 
A s. 38(2)(1) of the 2009 Act prescribing the salary and 
allowances of teachers keeping in mind Article 39(d) of the 
Constitution -
Right of children to free and compulsory 
Education .Act, 2009 - ss.23, 38(2)(1) - Article 39(d). 
8 
Writ of mandamus - Where a statutory provision casts a 
duty on a private unaided school to pay the same salary and 
allowances to its teachers as are being paid to the teachers 
of Government aided schools, then a writ of mandamus to the 
school could be issued to enforce such statutory duty- In the 
C ·instant case, there was no statutory provision and, therefore, 
a mandamus could not be issued to pay to the teachers of 
private recognized unaided schools the same salary and 
allowances as were payable to Government institutions. 
In 1923, respondent no.1-School was established as 
D a mission school by respondent no.2. Till 1976, the 
school received grant-in-aid. From 1977-78, the school 
was not receiving any grant-in-aid from the Government 
and the teachers were being paid less than the teachers 
of Government Schools and Government aided schools 
E in the State Government. Dissatisfied with their salary 
and allowances, some of the teachers (appellants) filed 
writ petitions before the High Court for direction to pay 
the salary and allowances at par with the teachers of 
Government Schools and Government aided schools. 
F The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ 
petition and directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay to 
the teachers the salary and allowances at par with their 
counterparts working in the Government Schools. On 
appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside 
the judgment of the Single Judge. The instant appeal was 
G filed challenging the order of the Division Bench of the 
High Court. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1. The Division Bench· the High Court rightly 
SATIMBLA SHA~A AND ORS. v. ST. PAUL'S 
205 
SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL 
held that the teachers of private unaided minority schools . A · 
had no right to claim salary equal to that of their counter-
parts working in .Government schools and Government 
aided schools. The teachers of Government schools are 
paid out of the Government funds and the teachers of 
Government aided schools are paid mostly out of the 
B 
Government funds, whereas the teachers of private 
unaided minority schools are paid out of the fees and 
other resources of the private schools. Moreover, 
unaided private minority schools over which the 
Government has no administrative control because of c 
their autonomy under Article 30(1) of the Constitution are 
not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the 
Constitution. As the right to equality under Article 14 of 
the Constitution is available against the State, it cannot 
be claimed against unaided private minority schools. D 
Similarly, such unaided private schools are not State 
within the meaning of Article 36 read with Article 12 of the 
Constitution an

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