LexTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus PRINCIPAL ABHAY NANDAN INTER COLLEGE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 693 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. PRINCIPAL ABHAY NANDAN INTER COLLEGE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 865 of 2021) SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.] The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 – ss.9, 16G – Regulations framed under Act – Regulation 101 – Amendment – Permanent posts abolished – Recruitment by way of Outsourcing – Permissibility of – Government passed Orders, applicable to govt. departments and aided schools, followed by amended Regulation 101 – Accordingly, posts of Class IV employees were to be filled up by the institutions through Outsourcing, permanent posts were abolished – Recruitments made by the institutions de hors the same – Writ petitions – High Court held Regulation 101 to be unconstitutional – On appeal, held: By the policy decision made, the appellants abolished the post though in an indirect way by providing for outsourcing – A court cannot create or sustain the said post – Nothing on record to hold that the decision made is extraneous as it is applicable not only to the aided institutions but also to all government departments – Entire litigation is triggered only by the institutions – Idea was to create a new set of employees introduced through Outsourcing – Impugned Regulation is only reiteration, as the Government Orders by way of policy take care of the aforesaid view – Further, an institution receiving aid is bound by the conditions imposed and therefore expected to comply – Appellants justified in passing the relevant Government Orders followed by the impugned Regulation – Impugned Regulation upheld – Judgment of the Division Bench and the consequential orders passed are set aside – Service Law – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 30, 226 – Equity – Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 – Object of – Discussed. Constitution of India – Article 30 – Held: Article 30 is subject to its own restrictions being reasonable – A protection cannot be [2021] 10 S.C.R. 693 693 A B C D E F G H 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R. expanded into a better right than one which a non-minority institution enjoys. Educational Institutions – Right of Institutions qua the aid – Held: Right to get an aid is not a fundamental right, the challenge to a decision made in implementing it, shall only be on restricted grounds – Further, when it comes to aided institutions, there cannot be any difference between a minority and non-minority one. Administrative Law – Subordinate legislation – Policy decision – When cannot be challenged – Discussed. Service Law – Recruitment by way of outsourcing – Held: Outsourcing per se is not prohibited in law– A recruitment by way of outsourcing may have its own deficiencies and pit falls, however, a decision to take “outsourcing” cannot be declared as ultra vires of the constitution on the basis of mere presumption and assumption. Constitution of India – Article 14 – Nature of – Discussed. Interpretation of Statutes – Old enactment – Constructive & purposive interpretation – Principle of interpretation – “Always speaking” principle – Discussed – The Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. RIGHT TO AID: - A decision to grant aid is by way of policy. While doing so, the government is not only concerned with the interest of the institutions but the ability to undertake such an exercise. Financial constraints and deficiencies are the factors which are considered relevant in taking any decision qua aid, including both the decision to grant aid and the manner of disbursement of an aid. Once it is held that right to get an aid is not a fundamental right, the challenge to a decision made in implementing it, shall only be on restricted grounds. Therefore, even in a case where a policy decision is made to withdraw the aid, an institution cannot question it as a matter of right. Maybe, such a challenge would still be available to an institution, when a grant is given to one institution as against the other institution which is similarly placed. Therefore, with the grant of an aid, the conditions come. If an A B C D E F G H 695 institution does not want to accept and comply with the conditions accompanying such aid, it is well open to it to decline the grant and move in its own way. On the contrary, an institution can never be allowed to say that the grant of aid should be on its own terms.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.