SUSHMITA BASU AND ORS. versus BALLYGUNGE SIKSHA SAMITY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 22-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUSHMITA BASU AND ORS. 
v. 
BALL YGUNGE SIKSHA SAMITY AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
Teachers of private unaided school-Seeking pay scales as 
C recommended by Third Pay Commission-Entitlement-Held: Not entitled, as 
the salaries and emoluments of teachers of private unaided institutions were 
not subject matter of reference to the Third Pay Commission. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ of mandamus by teachers of private unaided 
educational institution seeking hike in pay scales-Maintainability of-
Held, not maintainable as public law element is not involved 
The teachers of a recognized private educational institution filed Writ 
E Petition in the High Court seeking issue of a writ of mandamus to their 
institution to implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission 
including their implementation with retrospective effect. Subsequent to the 
filing of the Writ Petition, petitioners other than the five appellants herein, 
withdrew from the Writ Petition on their reaching an understanding with 
the authorities of the school. The five appellants pursued the Writ Petition. 
F Single judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition. The Management 
successfully filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. There was no statutory provision, rule or Government order 
directing the private unaided educational institutions to implement the 
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission especially in the context of 
the fact that the salaries and emoluments of teachers of private unaided 
institutions was not a subject matter of reference to the Third Pay Commission. 
506 
1509-D-EI 
SU SH MITA BASU r. BALL YGUNGESIKSHA SAMITY 
507 
2.1. The fact that a few are not satisfied is no ground for interference A 
by Court or for grant of relief in their favour when by and large the position 
adopted by the institution is found to be fair and just and is accepted by all 
other teachers. There has been just treatment of the teachers by the first 
respondent-Institution and there is no reason to interfere even on the ground 
that the appellants are being treated unfairly by their employer, the B 
educational institution, or on the basis that this is a case in which the 
conscience of the court is shocked, compelling it to enter the arena to afford 
relief to the teachers. (510-B-DI 
Reserve Bank of1ndia & Ors. v. C.N. Sahasranaman & Ors., ( 19861 2 
S.C.R. 881, relied on. 
.,_ 
Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India 
& Ors., (1987( l S.C.R. 238, referred to. 
2.2. Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue 
c 
a writ of mandamus by the court against a private educational institution like D 
the first respondent would be justified only if a public law element is involved 
and if it is only a private law remedy no Writ Petition would lie. A writ of 
mandamus could not have been issued to the first respondent in this case. 
(510-E-F( 
K. Krishnamacha1y11/11 & Ors. v. Shri Venkateswara Hindu College of E 
Engineering and Anr., (1997( 2 S.C.R. 368, relied on. 
3. The profession of teaching is a-noble profession. It is not an 
employment in the sense of it being merely an earner of bread and butter. A 
teacher fulfills a great role in the life of the nation. He is the 'guru'. It is the 
teacher, who moulds its future citizens by imparting to his students not only F 
knowledge, but also a sense of duty, righteousness and dedication to the welfare 
of the nation, in addition to other qualities of head and heart. If teachers 
clamour for more salaries and perquisites, the normal consequence in the 
case of private educational institutions, if the demand is conceded, would be 
to pass on the burden to the students by increasing the fees payable by the G 
students. (510-F-H( 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1468 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 29.2.2000 of the High Court 
ofCalci.:tta in A.P.O.T. No. 460of1999. 
H 
508 
SUPREME l'OllRT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Jitendra Kumar Sharma, Raja Chatterjee, Sachin Das, G.S. Chatterjee and 
P.N. Jha for the Appellants. 
P.P. Rao, Dipanker P. Gupta, Dhruv Agarwal. Vikram Bajaj, Sanjeev 
Kumar (for M/s. Khaitan & Co.) and Tara Chandra Shanna for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P.K.

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