//
you're reading...
legal issues

Service matter – Aided Schools – whether teachers of privately managed primary schools and primary sections of privately managed high schools are eligible to receive their salaries from the State Government? – Already three bench judges in Vinod Sharma case decided that they are entitled for Salaries from State Government – Apex court confirmed the same= CIVIL APPEAL NO.3989 OF 2006 State of U.P. & Ors. … Appellants Versus Pawan Kumar Divedi & Ors. … Respondents = 2014 Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41866

 Service matter – Aided Schools –  whether  teachers  of  privately  managed  primary  schools  and primary sections of privately managed high schools are eligible  to  receive their salaries from the State Government? – Already three bench judges in Vinod Sharma case decided that they are entitled for Salaries from State Government – Apex court confirmed the same=

2.          These appeals were first  listed  before  the  two-Judge  Bench.

While  noticing  the  provisions  of  Uttar   Pradesh   High   Schools   and

Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other  Employees)

Act, 1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’), Uttar  Pradesh  Basic  Education  Act,

1972 (for short ‘the 1972 Act’),  Uttar  Pradesh  Recognised  Basic  Schools

(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of  Teachers  and  Other  Conditions)

Rules, 1975 (for short ‘the 1975 Rules’), Uttar Pradesh Junior High  Schools

(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978  (for  short

‘the 1978  Act’),  Uttar  Pradesh  Recognised  Basic  Schools  (Junior  High

Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service  of  Teachers)  Rules,  1978

(for short ‘the 1978 Rules’), the two-Judge Bench felt  that  a  three-Judge

Bench decision of this Court in Vinod Sharma[1] required reconsideration.  =

The appellants, Vinod Sharma and others,  were

appointed as Assistant Teachers being duly  qualified.  On  09.04.1970,  the

District Inspector of Schools (Dehradun) gave permission to  the  management

to run Classes I to VIII. The Director of  Education  did  not  bring  these

teachers under the 1978 Act.   The  Assistant  Teachers,  Vinod  Sharma  and

others, filed a writ petition before the High Court  seeking  direction  for

payment of salary to them under the 1978 Act.  The state  functionaries,  on

the other hand, relied on Rule 10 of the 1975 Rules, which provides  that  a

recognised school shall undertake to pay, with effect  from  01.07.1975,  to

every teacher and employee the same scale of  pay,  dearness  allowance  and

additional dearness allowance as are paid to the teachers and  employees  of

the Board possessing similar qualifications.  The  High  Court  allowed  the

writ petition on 29.08.1991 and directed the state  functionaries  to  bring

the writ petitioners under the provisions of the  1978  Act  and  pay  their

salaries accordingly under it.   The  State  of  U.P.  filed  special  leave

petition against the judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court,  which  was

dismissed by this Court on 10.05.1993. Review petition  was  also  dismissed

by this Court on 17.09.1993.  Here ended the first round of litigation.

The relevant portion of the judgment in  Vinod  Sharma1

case reads as follows:

“However, the aforesaid Junior High School Payment  of  Salaries  Act,  1978

came into force with effect from 1-5-1979  by  virtue  of  the  notification

issued under Section 1(3). 

This  Act  was  brought  in  to  remove  frequent

complaints that salary of teachers and non-teaching employees of aided  non-

government Junior High Schools are  not  disbursed  in  time,  resulting  in

hardships to its employees. 

The aforesaid judgment  dated  29-8-1991  refers

to this Act. For the respondent State of U.P. the contention  is  that  this

is not applicable to the primary sections, namely, from Class I to  Class  V

but only to  Classes  VI  to  VII.  

The  High  Court  finally  directed  the

respondents to bring the appellants under  the  said  Act,  meaning  thereby

under the 1978 Act, and pay the salary according to the  provisions  of  the

said Act. The operative portion of the said order is also quoted hereunder:

“The respondents are directed by a mandamus to bring the  petitioners  under

the provisions of Payment of Salary Act and pay their  salary  according  to

the provisions of the said Act.”

We accordingly affirm the view taken by  the  three-Judge  Bench

in Vinod Sharma1. Our answer to the question is in the affirmative.

48.         As the fate of these appeals is dependant on the answer that  we

have given, we do not think it is necessary to send  these  appeals  to  the

Regular Bench. The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

2014 Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41866

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3989 OF 2006
State of U.P. & Ors. … Appellants
Versus

Pawan Kumar Divedi & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3990 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3991 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3992 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3993 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3994 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6111 OF 2008
JUDGMENT
R.M. LODHA, CJI.
The common question for consideration in this group of seven
appeals is whether teachers of privately managed primary schools and
primary sections of privately managed high schools are eligible to receive
their salaries from the State Government?
2. These appeals were first listed before the two-Judge Bench.
While noticing the provisions of Uttar Pradesh High Schools and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees)
Act, 1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’), Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act,
1972 (for short ‘the 1972 Act’), Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions)
Rules, 1975 (for short ‘the 1975 Rules’), Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 (for short
‘the 1978 Act’), Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978
(for short ‘the 1978 Rules’), the two-Judge Bench felt that a three-Judge
Bench decision of this Court in Vinod Sharma[1] required reconsideration.
3. The relevant portion of the reference order dated 08.09.2006ð
reads as follows:

“In the present appeals, submissions which were similar to those raised in
the writ petitions filed by Vinod Sharma1 and others before the High Court
and in the special leave petition in this Court have been repeated and
reiterated. What has been highlighted is the fact that having regard to the
various government orders, it would be quite evident that the State
Government had never intended to bring the primary sections of the
different junior basic schools, junior high schools and intermediate
colleges within the scope of the Payment of Salary Act, 1978 and that a
deliberate and conscientious decision was, therefore, made in treating the
“junior basic schools” differently from “junior high schools”. It is the
latter category of schools that were brought within the scope of the
Payment of Salary Act, 1978.

While noticing the fact that “junior basic schools” and “junior high
schools” were treated differently, the High Court and, thereafter, this
Court appear to have been swayed by the fact that certain schools provided
education from Classes I to X as one single unit, although, the same were
divided into different sections, such as, the primary section, the junior
high school section, which were combined together to form the junior basic
section from Classes I to VIII, and the high school section comprising
Classes IX and X. In fact, in one of these appeals where a recognised
Sanskrit institution is involved, the said institution is imparting
education both for the primary section, the high school section, the
intermediate section and the BA section. The Mahavidyalaya is thus
imparting education from Class I up to graduate level in a recognised
institution affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi.
It has been contended by Dr. Padia on behalf of the institution that the
said institution is one unit having different sections and the teachers of
the institution are teachers not of the different sections but of the
institution itself and as a result no discrimination could be made amongst
them. This was precisely one of the arguments advanced in Vinod Sharma1
which was accepted by this Court.

However, it appears to us that both the High Court and this Court appear
to have lost sight of the fact that education at the primary level has been
separated from the junior high school level and separately entrusted under
the different enactments to a Board known as the Uttar Pradesh Board of
Basic Education constituted under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education Act, 1972 and the same Board was entrusted with the authority to
exercise control over “junior basic schools” referred to in the 1975 Rules
as institutions imparting education up to the Vth class.

In our view, the legislature appears to have made a conscientious
distinction between “junior basic schools” and “junior high schools” and
treated them as two separate components comprising “junior basic education”
in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly, in keeping with the
[pic]earlier government orders, the Payment of Salary Act, 1978 did not
include primary sections and/or separate primary schools within the ambit
of the 1978 Act.

Of course, it has been conceded on behalf of the State Government that an
exemption was made in respect of 393 schools which had been continuing to
function from prior to 1973 and the teachers had been paid their salaries
continuously by the State Government. In the case of the said schools, the
State Government took a decision to continue to pay the salaries of the
teachers of the primary section of such schools.

Apart from the above, it has also been submitted by Mr Dinesh Dwivedi,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh that
payment of salaries of teachers of recognised primary institutions must be
commensurate with the State’s financial condition and capacity to make such
payment.

Having regard to the contentions of the respective parties, the issue
decided in Vinod Sharma1 that teachers of the primary sections of
recognised junior basic schools, junior high schools and high schools were
entitled to payment of their salaries under the Payment of Salary Act,
1978, merits reconsideration.”
4. On 10.10.2007, these appeals were listed before the three-Judge
Bench. The Bench noted that Vinod Sharma1 case was decided by a three-
Judge Bench and, therefore, these appeals are required to be considered by
a larger Bench. The order of 10.10.2007 is as under :
“These appeals have been placed before us on reference order
dated 8/9/2006 passed by Hon’ble two Judges Bench.

Having noticed the judgment rendered by three Judges Bench in Vinod
Sharma & Ors. Vs. Director of Education(Basic) U.P. & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC
404, the learned Judges were of the view that the judgment rendered in
Vinod Sharma (supra) needs reconsideration by a larger Bench and directed
to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate
orders.

We have seen the orders of Hon’ble CJI passed on the basis of a
note dated 14/9/2006 of A.R. (Listing). In the said note it is stated that
the matters are placed before Hon’ble CJI for listing it before an
appropriate Bench of three Hon’ble Judges.

Since Vinod Sharma case (supra) has been decided by three Judge
Bench, these appeals require to be reconsidered by a larger Bench. Place
the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders
for placing these appeals before a larger Bench for re-consideration of the
issue involved.”

5. This is how these appeals have come up for consideration before
this Bench.
6. The appeal in Vinod Sharma1 reached this Court from the
judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court
issued direction to the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. and other
functionaries of the state to pay salary to the appellants under the 1978
Act. The essential facts in Vinod Sharma1 case as noted by this Court in
the judgment are: 58 Gorkha Training Centre, Junior High [pic]School,
Dehradun Cantt. was established in the year 1952 for providing education to
the children of ex-servicemen, serving military personnel and officers as
well as civilians. The institution got recognition from the U.P. Government
with effect from 09.04.1959. The appellants, Vinod Sharma and others, were
appointed as Assistant Teachers being duly qualified. On 09.04.1970, the
District Inspector of Schools (Dehradun) gave permission to the management
to run Classes I to VIII. The Director of Education did not bring these
teachers under the 1978 Act. The Assistant Teachers, Vinod Sharma and
others, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking direction for
payment of salary to them under the 1978 Act. The state functionaries, on
the other hand, relied on Rule 10 of the 1975 Rules, which provides that a
recognised school shall undertake to pay, with effect from 01.07.1975, to
every teacher and employee the same scale of pay, dearness allowance and
additional dearness allowance as are paid to the teachers and employees of
the Board possessing similar qualifications. The High Court allowed the
writ petition on 29.08.1991 and directed the state functionaries to bring
the writ petitioners under the provisions of the 1978 Act and pay their
salaries accordingly under it. The State of U.P. filed special leave
petition against the judgment and order of the High Court, which was
dismissed by this Court on 10.05.1993. Review petition was also dismissed
by this Court on 17.09.1993. Here ended the first round of litigation. As
there was no prayer for payment of arrears of salary, no specific order was
passed by the High Court or this Court and the State of U.P. also did not
pay arrears of salary with effect from 01.07.1975. The aggrieved Assistant
Teachers, after making several representations, filed another writ petition
for specific direction for payment of arrears of salary since 01.07.1975.
That matter was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to pay
salaries of the writ petitioners with effect from 29.08.1991. It was this
order which came to be challenged in this Court. The three-Judge Bench
considered the provisions of the 1975 Rules, particularly the definitions
of “Junior Basic School” and “Recognised School”. Having regard to the
arguments advanced on behalf of the state that the 1978 Act was not
applicable to the primary sections, i.e., Junior Basic Schools and applied
only to the Junior High Schools, the Bench referred to the earlier decision
of the High Court dated 29.08.1991 which took note of the fact that
although the writ petitioners were teaching in the primary classes, they
were working in an institution which was a Junior High School and they were
all teachers of the Junior High School which ran classes from I to VIII,
which were being taught in the school, that constituted one unit and were
not separate units. The relevant portion of the judgment in Vinod Sharma1
case reads as follows:

“However, the aforesaid Junior High School Payment of Salaries Act, 1978
came into force with effect from 1-5-1979 by virtue of the notification
issued under Section 1(3). This Act was brought in to remove frequent
complaints that salary of teachers and non-teaching employees of aided non-
government Junior High Schools are not disbursed in time, resulting in
hardships to its employees. The aforesaid judgment dated 29-8-1991 refers
to this Act. For the respondent State of U.P. the contention is that this
is not applicable to the primary sections, namely, from Class I to Class V
but only to Classes VI to VII. The High Court finally directed the
respondents to bring the appellants under the said Act, meaning thereby
under the 1978 Act, and pay the salary according to the provisions of the
said Act. The operative portion of the said order is also quoted hereunder:

“The respondents are directed by a mandamus to bring the petitioners under
the provisions of Payment of Salary Act and pay their salary according to
the provisions of the said Act.”

It is not that the appellants are not entitled to the payment of any
salary. They are, but prior to bringing them under the said Act this
obligation is only on the recognised school under the aforesaid Rule 10 of
the 1975 Rules. But by the said High Court judgment the respondents were
bound to bring them under the Payment of Salary Act and pay their salaries
accordingly. This cannot be denied by the State. But in spite of this,
nothing was done in this regard.

Coming to the State’s objection, the submission is that they are only
entitled for payment of salary under the said Act since 11-2-1993, as on
that date the Government issued such orders. This objection has no force
and cannot be permitted to be raised in the present case. As aforesaid,
inter se, between the appellants and the respondents including the State
the matter has become final by the aforesaid High Court judgment dated 29-8-
1991. Against the aforesaid judgment, admittedly, SLP of the State was
rejected; even review petition was rejected. This apart, even otherwise the
State has not come in appeal against the impugned judgment dated 7-10-1996,
hence it cannot challenge the same in this appeal.

Returning to the impugned order, we find, in spite of several
representations, that the respondents did not respond in spite of the
earlier direction, hence it was ordered to pay them under the Payment of
Salary Act at least since the earlier High Court judgment and order dated
29-8-1991.[pic]

The appellants were not satisfied by the impugned order, as they claimed
their salaries since 1975 when the aforesaid 1975 Rule came into effect.
The contention is the spirit of the earlier High Court order was to pay
from that date. This was as Junior High School teachers were getting since
then, hence primary section teachers cannot be denied this right being in
the same school. In other words, to pay from the same date as was paid to
the Junior High School teachers. We find force in this submission. When
grievance of the appellants was accepted in the first writ petition to
bring them in parity with the Junior High School teachers, the payment from
1991 cannot be construed to be correct on the facts of this case. But
considering the claim of the appellants, they could in no case be entitled
to be paid prior to the Payment of Salary Act, 1978. Hence the appellants’
claim since 1975 cannot be accepted.

Considering the direction issued by the High Court, in its first judgment,
where clear direction is to pay these appellants under the Payment of
Salary Act as in the same institution another set of teachers (Junior High
School) are being paid under it and the institution being one unit, the
same cannot be denied to the teachers in the primary sections. In other
words, to pay them also under the same Act from the date Junior High School
teachers were paid in this institution. As we have held above even if the
argument for the State may have any merit in law, it cannot be sustained,
as it has become final inter se between the parties. It is also brought to
our notice that one of such teachers Km Harsh Uniyal, similar to the
appellants, though did not join in the first writ petition but on the basis
of decision of that case (1991), filed a Writ Petition No. 11644 of 1993
which was allowed by the High Court on 8-12-1993 with a direction to pay
the salary since the Payment of Salary Act was made applicable to that
institution. We were informed accordingly that payment was made to her by
the respondents.”

7. The correctness of the above view in Vinod Sharma1 case
requires examination by us. This necessarily involves consideration of the
aspect whether the separation of education at the primary level from the
Junior High School level and constitution of Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic
Education under the 1972 Act and the entrustment of the Board with the
authority to exercise control over Junior Basic Schools, referred to in the
1975 Rules as institution imparting education upto V class, render the view
taken by this Court in Vinod Sharma1 bad in law.
8. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the State of U.P.
submits that the 1978 Act does not apply to private unaided schools and
teachers of primary section of the Junior Basic School are not entitled to
the benefit of the said Act. The management is liable to pay salaries of
teachers both according to the 1975 Rules and the 1978 Act. There is no
provision for payment of salaries to the teachers in Junior Basic Schools
by the State Government. With regard to respondent No.10, Riyaz Junior
High School (Classes VI to VIII), learned senior counsel submits that the
unaided primary section (Classes I to V) after obtaining separate
recognition on 28.02.1980, though referred to as “primary section”, in
terms of definition in Rule 2(b) of the 1975 Rules, is a Junior Basic
School. Rule 4 requires the management to provide adequate financial
resources for it and Rule 10 requires the management to give an undertaking
to pay the salaries and allowances at the same scale prescribed for both
teachers. In terms of the 1975 Rules, the fact that the Junior Basic
School is run by the management of the Junior High School in the same
premises makes no difference. Learned senior counsel submits that in the
first round in Vinod Sharma1, the High Court in its order dated 29.08.1991,
without adverting to any statutory provision, held that all the classes
taught in the institution are one unit and the teachers work under one
management and one Head Master and, therefore, teachers of the primary
classes cannot be deprived of the benefit of the 1978 Act. He submits that
such a finding could not have been given in the absence of a challenge to
the 1975 Rules or the 1978 Act on the ground of discrimination. The order
of the High Court became final inter partes after the special leave
petition and the review petition filed by the state were dismissed. It was
for this reason that in the second round of Vinod Sharma1 case, the three-
Judge Bench of this Court declined to go into the merits of the earlier
order of the High Court and considered only from which date the teachers
would be entitled to salaries under the 1978 Act.
9. Mr. P. P. Rao, learned senior counsel submits that in the
reference order, the two-Judge Bench has rightly differed with the view
taken by the High Court in the first round in Vinod Sharma1 case and
observed that the High Court did not appreciate that education at primary
level has been separated from the Junior High School level and separately
entrusted under the different enactments to a Board constituted under
Section 3 of the 1972 Act and the same Board exercised control over Junior
Basic Schools and it was a conscious distinction made by the Legislature
between the two sets of schools and treat them as two separate components.
He submits that the state which has enacted the laws has always been of the
same view. He argues that assuming that two interpretations are possible to
the statutory provisions, one taken by the High Court in the first round of
Vinod Sharma1 case and the other taken by a Bench of this Court in the
order of reference, which is the same as that of the Rule maker, it would
be appropriate to allow the Rule maker to continue to implement the Acts
and the Rules as per their understanding from the inception.
10. Mr. P. P. Rao referred to TMA Pai Foundation[2], particularly
paragraph 61 (Page 546 thereof), wherein this Court observed that the
solution to the problem of the inability of the states to establish
institutions at the same level of excellence as private schools would lie
in the states not using their scanty resources to prop up institutions that
are able to otherwise maintain themselves out of the fees charged, but in
improving the facilities and infrastructure of state-run schools and in
subsidizing the fees payable by the students there. Rules 4 and 10 of the
1975 Rules are consistent with this view. With reference to
Unnikrishnan[3], learned senior counsel would submit that the resources of
the state are meant to be utilized for the benefit of the children who are
deprived of access to education or cannot afford it. Distinguishing HP
State Recognised Higher Schools Managing Committee[4], learned senior
counsel submitted that the judgment in this case was not applicable as it
considered a different question whether teachers of aided recognised
private schools are entitled to government pay scales. Learned senior
counsel submits that Article 21A of the Constitution and the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which came into force
w.e.f. 01.04.2010, are not relevant for the present case which relates to
an earlier period.
11. Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that meaning of the expression “Junior High School”
occurring in the 1978 Act has to be determined with reference to the 1978
Rules that were framed under the 1972 Act since neither the 1978 Act nor
the 1972 Act defines “Junior High School”. He heavily relies on the
principle of interpretation of statutes that Rules made under a statute
must be treated for all purposes of construction and obligation exactly as
if they were in the Act, and are to be of the same effect as if contained
in the Act, and are to be judicially noticed for all purposes of
construction and obligation (Maxwell ‘On Interpretation of Statutes’, 10th
Edn.). Learned senior counsel submits that this principle of
interpretation is accepted by this Court in Babu Ram[5] and Vibha[6]. He
submits that taking Section 4(2)(b) of the 1972 Act and the 1978 Rules as
guiding factors, the expression “Junior High School” would carry, as per
Section 2 (j) of the 1978 Act, the meaning “Classes VI to VIII” and exclude
Classes I to V.
12. Alternatively, Mr. Sunil Gupta argues that one of the legal
principles well-recognized is that when an expression in a later statute is
ambiguous, its meaning can be ascertained from its use and / or meaning in
a prior statute or statutory instrument dealing with the same subject
matter. In this regard, he relies upon two English decisions, Barras[7]
and Gallagher[8] and three decisions of this Court in Diamond Sugar[9],
Sirsilk[10] and Pure[11]. He would, thus, submit that the use and meaning
of the expression “Junior High School” must be traced with reference to
Section 4(2)(b) of the 1972 Act and Rule 2(e) of the 1978 Rules.
13. Learned senior counsel submits that despite the wider
expression “Basic School” embracing Classes I to VIII being available, at
least from 1972, the Legislature chose not to use the said expression in
the 1978 Act. Rather, in contrast therewith, the Legislature chose the
expression “Junior High School” in the 1978 Act. The intention of the
Legislature, learned senior counsel submits, is to apply the 1978 Act to
the narrower category, namely, Classes VI to VIII only and not to Classes I
to V of the basic schools.
14. Learned senior counsel also submits that totally different
arrangements have been made for the two sets of teachers, (1) teachers of
Classes VI to VIII and (2) teachers of Classes I to V in the statutory
provisions, namely, the 1975 Rules, on the one hand, and the 1978 Rules/
1978 Act, on the other hand.
15. Dr. M.P. Raju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 9, in
response to the arguments of the learned senior ounsel for the appellants,
argues that the term “Junior Basic School” means and includes Classes I to
VIII wherever Classes I to V are part of the said school. He submits that
there is an obligation on the state to provide aid to Classes I to VIII and
exclusion of junior basic school section of the same Junior High School
from aid is discriminatory and impermissible classification.
16. Learned counsel referred to Vinod Sharma1, wherein it was held:
“the petitioners may be teaching the primary classes but they were working
in the institution which is junior high school and they are teachers of the
junior high school which runs classes from I to VIII. All the classes
which are being taught in the school constitute one unit and they are not
separate units.” Relying upon Articles 21, 41, 45, 46 and, after
01.04.2010, Articles 21A and 51A(k) of the Constitution, learned counsel
submits that the state has an obligation to provide grant-in-aid to basic
education or basic schools (Classes I to VIII), corresponding to the
students of 6 to 14 years.
17. Learned counsel in support of his submission that state has an
obligation to provide grant-in-aid to basic education or basic schools
(Classes I to VIII) cited quite a few decisions of this Court. Some of
them being Unnikrishnan3, TMA Pai Foundation2, HP State Recognised Higher
Schools Managing Committee4 and Mata Tapeshwari[12].
18. Dr. M.P. Raju, learned counsel also submits that a
classification excluding Classes I to V from Junior High School for the
purpose of aid is discriminatory and without any reasonable objective or
any rational nexus.
19. Learned counsel argues that the 1978 Act contemplates the
Junior High School as including the Junior Basic School, i.e., Classes I to
V also wherever the components of Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic
Schools are together leading to Junior High School examination. The
schools having the Junior Basic Schools and the Senior Basic Schools either
separately or together are under the same Board, i.e., the Board of Basic
Education as per the provisions of the 1972 Act. The aid granted to the
schools having Classes VIII and below was brought under the statutory
scheme of payment of salary through the 1978 Act. Excluding Classes I to V
which are part of basic schools in the same school or institution from the
operation of the 1978 Act would be irrational. Learned counsel, thus,
submits that the view taken in Vinod Sharma1 is the correct view.
20. Having noted the arguments of the learned senior counsel and
counsel appearing for the parties, we think that for proper consideration
of the arguments advanced before us, it is appropriate to consider the
relevant provisions of a few statutory enactments and the rules framed by
the Government from time to time.
21. In 1921, the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short
“1921 Act”) was enacted to establish the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education (for short, “the Board”) which took the place of
Allahabad University in regulating and supervising the system of the High
School and Intermediate Education in Uttar Pradesh and prescribe courses
therefor. Section 2(a) of the 1921 Act, as amended in 1975, defines “Board”
and Section 2(b) defines “Institution”. In Section 2(a), “Board” means the
Board of High School and Intermediate Education. The expression
“Institution” in Section 2(b) means a recognized Intermediate College,
Higher Secondary School or High School, and includes, where the context so
requires, a part of an institution. Section 7 deals with the powers of the
Board. Under sub-section (3) of Section 7, one of the powers conferred on
the Board is to conduct examinations at the end of the High School and
Intermediate courses.
22. Educational Code of Uttar Pradesh (Revised 1958 Edition) which
has been placed on record is significant. Clauses (x) and (xxvi) of para 1
define “Institution” and “School”, respectively, as follows:
“1(x) Institution means an educational institution. Such institutions are
divided into the following two classes ;
(a) Recognised institution means an institution which imparts the
course of instruction prescribed or recognized by the Department or the
Intermediate Board or a University, and satisfies one or more of these
authorities, as the case may be, in the matter of efficiency. Such an
institution is open to periodical inspections by an officer or officers of
the Department and its students are eligible for admission to public
examinations conducted by the Department, or the Intermediate Board, or a
University;
(b) Unrecognised institution means an institution that does not
come under the above definition of recognised institutions;

(xxvi) School means a recognized institution which follows the
curriculum prescribed by the Department or the Intermediate Board. There
are several types of schools as follows :
(a) Nursery School means a school where children of pre-basic
stage, i.e. from about three to six years of age are taught,
(b) Junior Basic School means a school teaching children generally
between 6 and 11 years of age in Classes I to V (i.e. primary section),
(c) Senior Basic School or Junior High School means either a school
preparing students for the Junior High School Examination of the Department
or a school teaching Classes I to VIII or VI to VIII (middle section),
Note – Basic Schools include both Senior or Junior Basic Schools as well as
single schools with classes I to VIII.
(d) Higher Secondary School means a school which with or without
lower classes maintains Classes IX and X and/or XI and XII and prepares
students for the High School and/or Intermediate Examinations of the
Intermediate Board or a University;”

23. The 1971 Act was enacted to regulate the payment of salaries to
teachers and other employees of High Schools and Intermediate Colleges
receiving aid out of the state funds and to provide for matters connected
therewith. Section 2(b) of the 1971 Act defines “Institution”, which means
recognized institution for the time being receiving maintenance grant from
the State Government and includes a Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya or a Sanskrit
Vidyalaya receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. Section 2
also defines expressions such as “Management”, “Teacher”, “Employee” and
“Salary”. The residuary definition clause, viz., Section 2(h) of the 1971
Act, says that other words and expressions in the 1921 Act shall have the
meaning assigned to them if not defined under the Act. Section 5 of the
1971 Act provides for procedure for payment of salary in the case of
certain institutions.
24. The 1972 Act provides for the establishment of a Board of Basic
Education and for matters connected therewith. In the Statement of Objects
and Reasons, it is stated that the responsibility for primary education has
so far rested with Zila Parishads in rural areas and with Municipal Boards
and Mahapalikas in urban areas. The administration of education at this
level by the local bodies was not satisfactory, and it was deteriorating
day by day. There was public demand for the Government to take immediate
steps for improving the education at this level. Hence, for reorganizing,
reforming and expanding elementary education, it became necessary for the
State Government to take over its control into its own hands. It further
records that in order to strengthen the primary and junior high schools and
to increase their usefulness, the Government was going to assume full
responsibility for its control and management. With a view to take
effective steps for securing the object of Article 45 of the Constitution,
the Government has decided to transfer the control of primary education
from the local bodies to the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education with
effect from the Educational Session 1972-73. Section 2 of the 1972 Act
defines various expressions. The expression “basic education”, as defined
in Section 2(b), means education up to the eighth class imparted in schools
other than high schools or intermediate colleges, and the expression “basic
schools” shall be construed accordingly.
25. Section 4 of the 1972 Act provides for the functions of the
Board. One of the important functions of the Board, subject to the
provisions of the Act, is to organize, coordinate and control the imparting
of basic education. On coming into force of the Act, the powers of
management, supervision and control over the basic schools under clauses
(cc) or (d) of sub-section (2), which before the appointed day belonged to
local body, stood transferred in respect of such schools to the Board.
26. In exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of
the 1972 Act, the 1975 Rules were framed. In the 1975 Rules, under Rule
2(b), the expression “Junior Basic School” is defined, which means an
institution other than High Schools or Intermediate Colleges imparting
education up to Class V. The expression “Recognised School” in Rule 2(c)
means any Junior Basic School, not being an institution belonging to or
wholly maintained by the Board or any local body, recognized by the Board
before the commencement of these Rules for imparting education from Class I
to V. Rule 4 provides that in every recognized school adequate financial
resources shall be made available by the management of such school for its
efficient working and adequate facilities shall be provided in accordance
with such standard as may be specified by the Board for teaching the
subjects in respect of which such school is recognized. Rule 7 provides
that subject to the provisions of paras 106 to 114 of the Education Code,
so far as they are applicable, free education shall be provided in any
recognized school to 25 per cent of the number of students on the rolls of
such school.
27. The 1978 Rules were framed by the Governor of the state in
exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the 1972 Act.
These Rules came into force w.e.f. 13.02.1978. Clauses (c) and (e) of
Rule 2 define “Board” and “Junior High School”.
“Board” means the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education
constituted under Section 3 of the 1972 Act.
“Junior High School” means an institution other than high
school or intermediate college imparting education to boys or girls or both
from classes VI to VIII (inclusive).
28. The 1978 Act came to be enacted by the Uttar Pradesh
Legislature to regulate the payment of salaries to teachers and other
employees of Junior High Schools receiving aid out of the state funds and
to provide for matters connected therewith. The Act came into force w.e.f.
01.05.1979. Clause (b), Clause (e), Clause (h) and Clause (i) define
“Education officer”, “Institution”, “Teacher” and “Salary”, respectively.
“Education officer” means the District Basic Education Officer
appointed under the 1972 Act and in relation to girls’ institution, the
District Basic Education Officer (women), and in each case includes any
other officer authorized by the State Government to perform all or any of
the functions of the Education Officer under this Act.
“Institution” means a recognized Junior High School for the
time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government.
“Teacher” of an institution means a headmaster or other teacher
in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State
Government to the institution.
“Salary” of a teacher or employee means the aggregate of the
emoluments, including dearness or any other allowance, for the time being
payable to him at the rate approved for the purpose of payment of
maintenance grant.
Clause (j) of Section 2 in the definition clause says that
other words and expressions defined in the 1972 Act, not defined in the
1978 Act, shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Act.
29. Section 10 of the 1978 Act provides that the State Government
shall be liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every
institution due in respect of any period after the appointed day.
30. Section 13-A makes transitory provisions in respect of certain
upgraded institutions. It reads:
“13-A. Transitory provisions in respect of certain upgraded institutions.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the provisions of this
Act shall, mutatis mutandis apply, to an institution which is upgraded to
High School or Intermediate standard and, to such teachers and other
employees thereof in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid
by the State Government to such institution.

(2) For the purposes of this section the reference to the students wherever
they occur in section 5, shall be construed as reference to the students of
classes up to junior High School level only.”

31. Section 15 empowers the State Government to remove difficulties
in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. The provision reads:
“15. Power to remove difficulties.—(1) If any difficulty arises in giving
effect to the provisions of this Act or by reason of anything contained in
this Act, the State Government may as occasion requires, by notification
make such incidental or consequential provisions including provisions for
adapting or modifying any provision of this Act or of the Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education Act, 1972, or the rules made thereunder, but not affecting
the substance, as it may think necessary or expedient for the purposes of
this Act.

(2) No order under sub-section (1) shall be made after the expiration of a
period of the three years from the appointed day.

(3) Every order made under sub-section (1) shall be laid, as soon as may
be, before both the Houses of the State Legislature.”

32. Section 17 empowers the State Government to make rules for
carrying out the purposes of this Act.
33. As would be seen, the 1978 Act makes the State Government
liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every
recognised Junior High School receiving maintenance grant after the
appointed day. Curiously, Junior High School is not defined in the 1978
Act. We have to determine the meaning of the expression “Junior High
School” for the purposes of the 1978 Act. But before we do that, a brief
comment in respect of state’s obligation to grant aid to recognised
educational institutions imparting basic education corresponding to
students of 6 to 14 years may be made. Before insertion of Article 21-A in
the Constitution by 86th Amendment Act, 2002 which received the assent on
12.12.2002, this Court in Unnikrishnan3 observed that the children up to
the age of 14 years have a fundamental right to free education.
34. Article 45 which was under consideration in Unnikrishnan3 reads
that “the State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of 10 years
from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory
education for all children until they complete the age of 14 years.”
35. In paragraph 172 of the Report, the Constitution Bench in
Unnikrishnan3 said:

“172. Right to free education for all children until they complete the age
of fourteen years (Art. 45). It is noteworthy that among the several
articles in Part IV, only Article 45 speaks of a time-limit; no other
article does. Has it no significance? Is it a mere pious wish, even after
44 years of the Constitution? Can the State flout the said direction even
after 44 years on the ground that the article merely calls upon it to
“endeavour to provide” the same and on the further ground that the said
article is not enforceable by virtue of the declaration in Article 37. Does
not the passage of 44 years — more than four times the period stipulated in
Article 45 — convert the obligation created by the article into an
enforceable right? In this context, we feel constrained to say that
allocation of available funds to different sectors of education in India
discloses an inversion of priorities indicated by the Constitution. The
Constitution contemplated a crash programme being undertaken by the State
to achieve the goal set out in Article 45. It is relevant [pic]to notice
that Article 45 does not speak of the “limits of its economic capacity and
development” as does Article 41, which inter alia speaks of right to
education. What has actually happened is — more money is spent and more
attention is directed to higher education than to — and at the cost of —
primary education. (By primary education, we mean the education, which a
normal child receives by the time he completes 14 years of age.) Neglected
more so are the rural sectors, and the weaker sections of the society
referred to in Article 46. We clarify, we are not seeking to lay down the
priorities for the Government — we are only emphasising the constitutional
policy as disclosed by Articles 45, 46 and 41. Surely the wisdom of these
constitutional provisions is beyond question. This inversion of priorities
has been commented upon adversely by both the educationists and
economists.”

Then, in paragraph 175, the Court stated:

“175. Be that as it may, we must say that at least now the State should
honour the command of Article 45. It must be made a reality — at least now.
Indeed, the National Education Policy 1986 says that the promise of Article
45 will be redeemed before the end of this century. Be that as it may, we
hold that a child (citizen) has a fundamental right to free education up to
the age of 14 years.”

In paragraph 176 in Unnikrishnan3, the Court said as follows:

“176. This does not however mean that this obligation can be performed only
through the State Schools. It can also be done by permitting, recognising
and aiding voluntary non-governmental organisations, who are prepared to
impart free education to children. This does not also mean that unaided
private schools cannot continue. They can, indeed, they too have a role to
play. They meet the demand of that segment of population who may not wish
to have their children educated in State-run schools. They have necessarily
to charge fees from the students. In this judgment, however, we do not wish
to say anything about such schools or for that matter other private
educational institutions except ‘professional colleges’. This discussion is
really necessitated on account of the principles enunciated in Mohini Jain
v. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666 and the challenge mounted against
those principles in these writ petitions.”

36. In TMA Pai Foundation2, the eleven-Judge Constitution Bench
approved the view of Unnikrishnan3 to the extent it was held in that case
that primary education is a fundamental right. Question 9 and its answer
(Pg. 590 of the Report) read as under:

“Q. 9. Whether the decision of this Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State
of A.P. (except where it holds that primary education is a fundamental
right) and the scheme framed thereunder require
reconsideration/modification and if yes, what?

The scheme framed by this Court in Unni Krishnan case and the direction to
impose the same, except where it holds that primary education is a
fundamental right, is unconstitutional. However, the principle that there
should not be capitation fee or profiteering is correct. Reasonable surplus
to meet cost of expansion and augmentation of facilities does not, however,
amount to profiteering.”

37. The statement by the five–Judge Constitution Bench in
Unnikrishnan3 that primary education is fundamental right is echoed in HP
State Recognised Higher Schools Managing Committee4 as well. The
three–Judge Bench in paragraphs 16 and 17 (pgs. 514-515 of the Report)
reiterated the constitutional mandate to the state to provide free
education to the children up to the age of 14. The three–Judge Bench said:

“16. The constitutional mandate to the State, as upheld by this Court in
Unni Krishnan case — to provide free education to the children up to the
[pic]age of fourteen — cannot be permitted to be circumvented on the ground
of lack of economic capacity or financial incapacity.

17. It is high time that the State must accept its responsibility to extend
free education to the children up to the age of fourteen. Right to
education is equally guaranteed to the children who are above the age of
fourteen, but they cannot enforce the same unless the economic capacity and
development of the State permits the enforcement of the same. The State
must endeavour to review and increase the budget allocation under the head
‘Education’. The Union of India must also consider to increase the
percentage of allocation of funds for “Education” out of the Gross National
Product.”
38. With the above constitutional philosophy, let us determine the
meaning of the expression “Junior High School” for the purposes of the 1978
Act.
39. There is not much debate that the students of secondary and
primary schools are classified in Section 3 of Educational Code (Revised
1958 Edition) as follows:
(a) Pre-basic Stage ….Nursery Education
(b) Junior Basic (Primary) Stage ….Classes I to V
(c) Senior Basic (Junior High Schools) …Classes VI to VIII
Stage
(d) Higher Secondary Stage:
I. High School Stage …..Classes IX and X
II. Intermediate Stage …..Classes XI and XII

40. On behalf of the appellants, heavy reliance is placed on the
definition of “Junior High School” in the 1978 Rules. Does the definition
of “Junior High School” in the 1978 Rules control the same expression
occurring in the 1978 Act? We do not think so. The definition of “Junior
High School” in Rule 2(e) of the 1978 Rules is not incorporated in the 1978
Act either expressly or impliedly. The principle of interpretation that an
expression used in a rule or bye-law framed in exercise of power conferred
by a statute must have the same meaning as is assigned to it under the
statute has no application in a situation such as the present one where the
meaning of an expression occurring in a statute is itself to be determined.
Obviously that cannot be done with the help of a rule made under a
different statute.
41. Section 2(j) of the 1978 Act says that the words and
expressions defined in the 1972 Act and not defined in this Act shall have
the meanings assigned to them in the 1972 Act. But, the 1972 Act also does
not define the expression “Junior High School”, it merely refers to it as
examination. Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellants
sought to invoke the principle of interpretation of statutes that Rules
made under a statute must be treated for all purposes of construction and
obligation exactly as if they were in the Act, and are to be of the same
effect as if contained in the Act, and are to be judicially noticed for all
purposes of construction and obligation. The invocation of this principle
is misplaced. Firstly, because we are not concerned with the construction
of an expression in the 1972 Act under which the 1978 Rules have been made.
Secondly and more importantly, there is no principle that rules made under
a different and distinct statute must be treated for the purposes of
construction as if they were part of the Act. In our view, the definition
of “Junior High School” in the 1978 Rules cannot be judicially noticed for
the purposes of construction and obligation of the 1978 Act.
42. We are also not persuaded by the submission of Mr. Sunil Gupta
that since the expression “Junior High School” is not defined in the 1978
Act, its meaning can be ascertained from the 1978 Rules by applying the
principle that when an expression in a later statute is ambiguous, its
meaning can be ascertained from its use and/or meaning in a prior statute
or statutory instrument dealing with the same subject matter for the
present purpose. On the above principle of interpretation, there is not
much challenge. The question is of its applicability to the present case.
The 1978 Rules are made by the Governor under the 1972 Act, which do not
deal with the aspect of payment of salaries to the teachers and the
employees of a recognized school at all. The State Legislature has made a
separate enactment, viz., the 1978 Act, for payment of salaries. The
definition of “Junior High School” in the 1978 Rules does not exhaust the
scope of the expression “Junior High School”. Moreover, a prior rule
cannot be taken in aid to construe a subsequent enactment.
43. It is important to notice here that recognised Junior High
Schools can be of three kinds: (one) having Classes I to VIII, i.e.,
Classes I to V (Junior Basic School) and so also Classes VI to VIII (Senior
Basic School), (two) a school as above and upgraded to High School or
intermediate standard and (three) Classes VI to VIII (Senior Basic School)
initially with no Junior Basic School (Classes I to V) being part of the
said school.
44. As regards the first two categories of Junior High Schools, the
applicability of Section 10 of the 1978 Act does not create any difficulty.
The debate which has centered round in this group of appeals is in respect
of third category of the schools where Classes I to V are added after
obtaining recognition to the schools which are recognized and aided for
imparting education in Classes VI to VIII. Whether teachers of primary
section Classes I to V in such schools are entitled to the benefit of
Section 10 of the 1978 Act is the moot question. As noticed, the
constitutional obligation of the state to provide for free and compulsory
education of children till they complete the age of 14 years is beyond
doubt now. The note appended to clause (xxvi), para 1 of the Educational
Code (revised edition, 1958), inter alia, provides that Basic Schools
include single schools with Classes I to VIII. In our view, if a Junior
Basic School (Classes I to V) is added after obtaining necessary
recognition to a recognized and aided Senior Basic School (Classes VI to
VIII), then surely such Junior Basic School becomes integral part of one
school, i.e., Basic School having Classes I to VIII. The expression
“Junior High School” in the 1978 Act is intended to refer to the schools
imparting basic education, i.e., education up to VIII class. We do not
think it is appropriate to give narrow meaning to the expression “Junior
High School” as contended by the learned senior counsel for the state.
That Legislature used the expression Junior High School and not the Basic
School as used and defined in the 1972 Act, in our view, is insignificant.
The view, which we have taken, is fortified by the fact that in Section
2(j) of the 1978 Act, the expressions defined in the 1972 Act are
incorporated.
45. The submission of Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the
State of U.P. with reference to the subject School, namely, Riyaz Junior
High School (Classes VI to VIII), that the said school was initially a
private recognized and aided school and the primary section (Classes I to
V) was opened by the management later on after obtaining separate
recognition, which was un-aided, the teachers of such primary section, in
terms of definition in Rule 2(b) and Rule 4 of the 1975 Rules are not
entitled to the benefits of Section 10 of the 1978 Act does not appeal to
us for what we have already said above. The view taken by the High Court
in the first round in Vinod Sharma1 that Classes I to VIII taught in the
institution are one unit, the teachers work under one management and one
Head Master and, therefore, teachers of the primary classes cannot be
deprived of the benefit of the 1978 Act, cannot be said to be a wrong view.
Rather, it is in accord and conformity with the Constitutional scheme
relating to free education to the children up to 14 years.
46. Though in the Reference Order, the two-Judge Bench has observed
that the High Court in the first round in Vinod Sharma1 did not appreciate
that the education at the primary level has been separated from the Junior
High School level and separately entrusted under the different enactments
to the Board constituted under Section 3 of the 1972 Act and the same Board
exercises control over Junior Basic Schools and it was a conscious
distinction made by the Legislature between two sets of schools and treat
them two separate components and, therefore, Vinod Sharma1 does not take
the correct view but we think that the features noted in the reference
order do not render the view taken in Vinod Sharma1 bad. We find merit in
the argument of Dr. M.P. Raju that the schools having the Junior Basic
Schools and the Senior Basic Schools either separately or together are
under the same Board, i.e., the Board of Basic Education, as per the 1972
Act. Moreover, any other view may render the provisions of the 1978 Act
unconstitutional on the ground of discrimination. In our considered view,
any interpretation which may lead to unconstitutionality of the provision
must be avoided. We hold, as it must be, that Junior High School
necessarily includes Classes I to V when they are opened in a Senior Basic
School (Classes VI to VIII) after obtaining separate recognition and for
which there may not be a separate order of grant-in-aid by the Government.
47. We accordingly affirm the view taken by the three-Judge Bench
in Vinod Sharma1. Our answer to the question is in the affirmative.
48. As the fate of these appeals is dependant on the answer that we
have given, we do not think it is necessary to send these appeals to the
Regular Bench. The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

….………..……………………CJI.
(R.M. Lodha)
…….………..……………………J.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
…….………..……………………J. (J. Chelameswar)
…….………..……………………J.
(A.K. Sikri)
NEW DELHI; …….………..……………………J.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2014. (Rohinton Fali Nariman)
———————–
[1] Vinod Sharma and others v. Director of Education (Basic) U.P. and
others; [(1998) 3 SCC 404]
ð reported in (2006) 7 SCC 745
[2] TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka; [(2002) 8 SCC 481]
[3] J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of AP; [(1993) l SCC 645]
[4] State of HP v. HP State Recognised High Schools Managing Committee;
[(1995) 4 SCC 507]
[5] State of UP v. Babu Ram Upadhya; [AIR 1961 SC 751]
[6] Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vibha Shukla (Smt.) and Others; [ (2007)
15 SCC 161]
[7] Barras v. Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Company; [1933 All ER
52]
[8] Gallagher v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; [(2008) 4
All ER 640]
[9] Diamond Sugar Mills Ltd. v. the State of Uttar Pradesh; [AIR 1961 SC
652]
[10] Sirsilk v. Textile Committee and Others; [1989 Supp 1 SCC 168]
[11] Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke &
Chemicals Ltd. and Others; [(2007) 8 SCC 705]
[12] State of U.P. v. Committee of Management, Mata Tapeshwari; [(2010) 1
SCC 639]

———————–
33

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,729,188 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,854 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com