Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER,MEHSANA ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VIDOTEJAK MANDAL & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2397 1995 SCC (5) 324
1995 SCALE (4)707
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST,1995
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.L. Hansaria
Mr. Narayan Shettym, Sr. Adv. and Mr. S.C.Patel, Adv, with
him for the Appellant in C.A.No.7091/95
Mr. S. K. Dholakia, Sr. Adv. Mrs. H. Wahi, Adv. with him for
the State of Gujarat.
Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. and Mr. M.N. Shroff, Adv. with him
for the Respondents.
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
IN THRE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7091 OF 1995
(Arising out SLP [C] No. 18381 of 1995]
District Primary education Officer,
Mehsana etc. etc.
V.
Vidotejak Mandal & Ors. etc.
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 7092-93 of 1995
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9626, 14744’95)
O R D E R
Delay condoned. Leave grante.
These appeals by special leave arise from the Judgment
of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated March
3, 1994 made in L.P.A. 129/93 and batch. Respondent No.1 is
a Trust which is a recognised Institution running primary
education schools. It claimed for grant-in-aid for one
cleark and one peon, i.e., non-teacing staff. The appellants
rejected the claim. When they approaced under Act.226, the
High Court interpreted sub-rule (3) of Rule 115 of the
Bombay Primary Education Act, 1949
the schools cinducted by the Association
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
or Society and dividing the total by the
number of schools so conducted."
Sub-rule (3). "Subject to the
instructions that may be issued by the
Direcrtor from time to time educational
bodies or associations conducting a
number of approved schoos shall be
entitled to grant on overhead
expenditute at three fourths of their
approved expenditure under that head."
when a doubt has arisen whether the rule will be applied to
the teaching staff as well, we directed the Government to
clarify its stand. And additional affidavit has been filed
on july 11, 1995 in which Dr, I.M. Patel,
the Director of Primary Education stated in paragraph 2
thus:
"That the controversy involved in this
case is limited to the payment of grant
payable to non-teaching staff only. As
far as grant converned, it is being paid
to all the teacher of private schools
iorrespective of the fact whether an
institution or trust runs one school or
more than one school. The percentage of
grant payable towards Salary ecxpenses
to teaching staff varies from 85% to
95%. The copy of the resolution of
Education Department of Govt. of Gujarat
dated 11th October, 1977 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure "B". It
is further submitted that even in Govt.
Primary School there is no such practice
of appointing non-teaching staff like a
clerk or a peon, On the other hand if
there are more than 200 students then
one extra teacher is permitted to be
appointed. Moreover in such schools
clerical work is very less. The salaries
of teachers are directly paid by Govt.
though cheque. Moreover additional
teachers as aforesaid over the strength
of 200 students undertake the
responsibility of administrative,
clerial and other misc. Kind of work if
necessary. Even where the institution
runs more than once school, the grant
towards the salray expenses of non-
teaching staff is not being paid. There
is not a single primary school in the
stateof Gujarat where grant for such
expenses incurred under the overhead of
Non-teaching staff is paid."
It would thus be clear that they being not only as a matter
of rule and also practice, no money is being paid by way of
grant-in-aid or otherwise to aby school either maintained by
the Municipality or any statutory body. The administrative
work is being got done by the appropriate persons including
teachers even in Government Primary Schools as averred in
the additional affidavit. We are of the opinion that the
High Court was, therefore, not right in holding that there
is a discrimination in denying the payment of grant-in-aid
to the respondents for the non-teaching staff.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3