THE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. versus MRS. RAJNI V ALI AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 158 · Decided: 12-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. 
v. 
MRS. RAJNI V ALI AND ORS. 
JANlJARY 12, 2COO 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 21, 39(d), 41 and 45--Right 
to Educatiort-Duty of State-Financing of privately managed recognised 
C aided schools-Constitutional mandate that the State shall ensure proper 
education to the students on whom the future of the society depends. 
Service Law--J'Equal pay for equal work"-Teachers of educational 
institutions getting Grant-in-aid-State Administration cannot shirk its 
responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea 
D of lack of resources-It is for the authorities running the Administration to 
find out the ways and means of securing funds for the purpose-Directions 
issued by High Court for parity in payscales--Upheld. 
Respondents 1 to 12, lecturers teaching different subjects in the 11th 
and 12th classes ll'f a private educational institution filed a writ petition 
E against the apirellants viz. Chandigarh Administr-<1tion, Director of Public 
Instruction (Schoo!) and the Managing Committee of the school for a 
direction that they shculd be paid the sume saldl"Y and dearness llllO'l•·ance 
as their counter- parts working in other private recognised aided schools 
in Chandigarh and that the expenses so incurred be apportioned by llie 
F Union Territory Administration and the School Management in the ratio 
cf 95% and 5% as is done between the State Governments and Management 
of Institution Aided Schools. 
This claim for parity of salary was contestet! on the ground that 
permission to open the 11th and Uth classes in the instant school vms 
G subject to the condition that no grant-in-aid would be provided for the 
additional staff. The High Court, however, allowed the writ petition and 
directed that the writ petitioners be paid the same salary as their counter 
parts in the privately managed government aided schools in Chandigarh· 
and the expenses so incurred be apportioned by the Chandigarh Ad-
H ministration and the Management in the ratio of95% and 5% respectively. 
158 
\ 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. RATNI 
159 
Aggrieved, the Appellants appealed to this Court. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Imparting primary and secondary education to students 
is the bounden duty of the State Administration. It is a constitutional 
mandate that the State shall ensure proper education to the students on B 
whom the future of the society depends. In line with this principle, the State 
has enacted Statutes and framed Rules and Regulations to control/regu· 
late establishment and running of private schools at different levels. The 
State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools with a view to 
ensure smooth running of the institutions and to ensure that the standard C 
of teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of funds. It needs no 
emp!iasis that appointment of qualified and efficient teachers is a sine qua 
non for maintaining high standard of teaching in any educational institu· 
tion. Keeping in mind these and other relevant factors this Court in a 
number of cases has intervened for setting right any discriminatory treat· 
ment meted out to teaching and non· teaching staff ofa particular institu-
D 
tion or a class of institutions. [163-A·D] 
2. The undisputed factual position that emerges from the material 
on record is that the school was established after receiving permissfon 
from the competent authority of the U.T. Administration, the institution 
W'dS recognised by the Administration, upgraded to a Higher Secondary 
School and 11th and 12th classes started with the permission of the 
competent authority. The institution \'I-as receiving grant-in-aid since 
December 1967 from the Administration. Respondents 1 to 12, lecturers 
teaching different subjects were appointed by the Management under the 
Recruitment Rules. It is not the case of the Appellants that the Higher 
Secondary classes constitute a separate and independent institution, that 
the posts held by respondents 1 to 12 are not necessary for running the 
Higher Secondary Classes and are surplusage in the institution; but the 
respondents were appointed after November 30, 1967 and are not entitled 
to the benefit of salary under the Grant-in-aid Scheme. [162-E·H] 
3. Tested on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the earlier 
decisions, the position is manifest that there is no justificati

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