Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 892 (RAJ)

Man Singh v. Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samiti

2005-03-22

AJAY RASTOGI

body2005
Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Petitioners 1 to 10, who were working as Teachers in the Institution run by Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samiti (respondent No. 1), have filed this joint petition with the grievance that despite their holding posts of Teacher, respondent-Samiti initiated process of holding selection afresh through advertisement (Exhibit-11) and if such appointments are made, that would jeoparadise their right to continuation in service as Teacher; and have also prayed that they should be paid regular pay scale of Teacher as admissible to similar category in State Government institution. 2. When this matter came up for hearing before this Court on 04.02.2005, respondents were directed to find out the present status of writ petitioners as to whether they are still in employment or not and if any one of them is in employment then what salary is being paid to them. In compliance of direction of this Court, the affidavit has been filed pointing out that petitioner No. 9 Satya Narain Sharma alone is presently working in their institution as untrained Teacher and he is being paid a sum of Rs. 2,926/-towards salary and allowance. When the matter came up for hearing on 15.03.2005, after taking note of additional affidavit filed by respondents, looking to the fact that only petitioner No. 9 is in service of respondent institution, writ petition filed by other petitioners was dismissed, and accordingly Shri R.C. Joshi, Counsel for petitioners argued the case only with regard to grievance of petitioner No. 9 Satya Narain Sharma. 3. Case of petitioner No. 9 is that despite his working as Teacher duly appointed after going through the process of selection in respondent institution, he is not being paid salary and allowances as admissible to such like similarly placed Teachers working in the State Government, and denial of pay to him is in violation of Articles 14 and 39 (d) of Constitution of India. 4. Shri Joshi further urged that respondent institution is recognised by State Government and as per Condition No. 4 of terms and Conditions of its Recognition (Annexure-R/5), employees working in recognised institution are entitled to get same pay alongwith allowances and facilities as are admissible to Government Teachers, and the permission was granted to such recognised institutions that as per sanctioned strength, at least upto 50%, trained Teachers should be appointed. Relevant Condition Nos. Relevant Condition Nos. 3 and 4 of Annexure-R/5, read as under: 3- laLFkk esa dk;jr LVkQ de ls de 50 izfrkr iz Zf kf {kr gksuk vko;d gS] tgka rd lEHko gks lHkh v/;kid izf ka fdUrq iz-v- dks izq f {kr gh yxk;s tkosf kf {kr gksuk vfuok;Z gSA fu; fDr lEca/kh lsok krsZa foHkkx }kjk le; le; ij fu/kkZfjr fu;eksa ds vuqlkj gksxhA 4- laLFkk esa dk;jr deZpkfj;kas dks jktdh; fu;ekuqlkj osru] egaxkbZ HkRrk ,oa ih-,Q- dh lq Zfo/kk,a miyC/k djok; h tkosa A 5. Shri Joshi also urged that even if the institution is not receiving any aid from State Government, then also, the institution is under obligation to pay same pay and allowances besides other facilities as are admissible to Government Teachers as it is one of the conditions of recognition, and in view thereof , the petitioner is entitled to get same pay with allowances and facilities as are admissible to Teachers working in State Government Institution. 6. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. Shri Man Singh Gupta, Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that writ against respondent institution is not maintainable because it is not an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India, nor it is an institution getting any aid by the State Government. Shri Gupta also urged that under the State Government, service of Teacher Grade III are regulated under Rajasthan State Subordinate Education Services Rules, 1971 ("1971 Rules") and the eligibility for the post is to have a qualification of Hr./Sr. Secondary with B.S.T.C., as such the petitioner, who is a untrained teacher cannot equate for grant of pay scale of Teachers working in the State Government institution. 7. Secondary with B.S.T.C., as such the petitioner, who is a untrained teacher cannot equate for grant of pay scale of Teachers working in the State Government institution. 7. Shri Gupta further submitted that the State Government has regulated the conditions of employees of Non-Government Educational Institution by enacting Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 ("1989 Act") which came into effect from 01.01.1993, and Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 ("1993 Rules") were framed by State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 43 of 1989 Act, which came into effect from 01.04.1993; and as per Section 29 of 1989 Act, State Government casted an obligation upon aided institution to pay salary and allowances as admissible to the staff belonging to similar categories in Government institutions and in view of statutory enactment, only such employees who are serving in aided institutions are entitled for pay scale as admissible in the State Government institutions, and the present institution where Petitioner No. 9 is employed, is not an aided institution, and apart from it, he is not even trained Teacher and even if there is a violation of condition of recognition, it will not confer any right upon the petitioner to seek writ of mandamus against respondent institution for grant of pay scale as admissible to similar category of employees in the State Government institutions. 8. I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undoubtedly, petitioner No. 9 is an Untrained Teacher working in respondent institution on the pay scale fixed by institution. Submission made by Shri Joshi that irrespective of the Aid extended to the institution their employees are entitled to get same pay scale etc. 8. I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undoubtedly, petitioner No. 9 is an Untrained Teacher working in respondent institution on the pay scale fixed by institution. Submission made by Shri Joshi that irrespective of the Aid extended to the institution their employees are entitled to get same pay scale etc. of corresponding category working in Government educational institutions, cannot be accepted for the reason that Conditions of Recognition to the institution are being regulated by the 1989 Act the 1993 Rules framed thereunder, and only such institution have been casted upon statutory obligations to pay salary and allowances to the employees, who are working in aided institution, as admissible to the staff belonging to similar categories in Government institutions, and this fact has not been disputed that present institution is not receiving any aid from the State Government, and service conditions of recognised institutions are regulated by State Government in terms of Section 16 of the 1989 Act, therefore, in my opinion, employees of unaided institutions cannot seek extension of benefit of pay and allowances as are admissible to the staff belonging to similar categories in Government institution, in view of scheme of the 1989 Act. Apart from statutory requirement, as available for aided institutions, present petitioner is not even trained Teacher, and the Teachers who are recruited in the State Government institutions under the 1971 Rules, whereby training to BSTC is the minimum qualification prescribed for one to seek employment as Teacher in Government institutions. In my opinion, untrained Teacher serving in unaided institution cannot claim parity of pay scale with the staff of similar category working in Government educational institutions. 9. So far as Conditions of Recognition are concerned, if at all the same has been violated by recognised institution, that cannot give right to Petitioner No. 9 to claim pay scale of corresponding category of employees working in Government institutions, despite the fact that he lacked minimum qualification of B.S.T.C. training, which is required for a Teacher to hold post in Government institutions under 1971 Rules. 10. Consequently, I find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith 2nd Stay Petition filed on 23.03.1992 and Miscellaneous Stay Petition No. 2856/1991. No order as to costs.