AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The facts, involved in the present writ petition are identical to that of W.P. No. 2438/1997 (Chhattisgarh Khadan Karkhana Mazdoor Union & Others v. Management of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others) and other connected matters, which are being disposed of today, by a separate judgment. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure P/1), wherein the recognition granted to non-Government Higher Secondary School, Ghordewa, Katghora, has been cancelled and the students of that school were attached to the Government Higher Secondary School, Bankimongra. The School Management Committee is neither the petitioner nor a party respondent to the petition. Thus, the School Management Committee/Society, which may be actually aggrieved by the order, as aforestated, appears to be not aggrieved as the School Management Committee/Society have not approached this Court.
The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the school in question was set up and run by the Managing Committee consisting of the officers of the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (for short ''the SECL'') or its predecessors. One of the conditions in the appointment orders was that the teachers appointed in the school would be paid pay and allowances as per the government pay scales. After due selection, the petitioners were appointed much before the school was recognized by the respondent No. 2. The school was recognized for the first time in the year 1985 (Annexure P/2). As per Regulation 73 of the Regulations, framed by the respondent State, under the Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965, the teachers employed in the schools which receive no grant in aid, would also be entitled to the pay at par with the government teachers. The SECL, through its Managing Committee had been paying the pay and allowances as paid to the teachers of the government school till 1996. When the pay scales of the government teachers were revised in the year 1996, the Managing Committee refused to revise the upward pay and allowances, upon which one of the similarly situated person filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1805/2007, which is amongst one of the petitions which is being disposed today.
Shri Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it is the contractual liability of the SECL to pay the salary and other allowances at par with the teachers of other government schools. The respondent No. 2 had issued a show cause notice (Annexure P/4) to the Managing Committee of the school as to why recognition granted may not be cancelled due to failure to pay the revised pay and allowances to the teachers. The school management, instead of replying to the notice, asked the Principal of the school to reply the same which was replied to on 26.08.2008 (Annexure P/5). Shri Nair would further submit that the dispute with regard to non-revision of pay and allowances has been pending before this Court since 1996 and the same is also in the knowledge of the respondent Board. Thus, before any decision is taken by this Court, the respondent-Board could not have cancelled the recognition granted to the school. Due to such act of the respondent Board, the students have been facing great hardships. The recognition granted to the school can be withdrawn or cancelled only on infringement of the conditions of such grant. There is no condition attached to the recognition granted to the school that the teachers should be paid salary and allowances at par with the government teachers. Thus, this ground is not available to the respondent Board for taking the impugned action. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the State has amended the rules regarding grant and withdrawal of recognition in the year 1994, wherein payment of salary or fixing the rate of salary is not a condition of granting recognition in these rules. Thus, the impugned order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be quashed.
In the instant case, the respondent-State has not filed any response.
Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 would submit that proper notice was issued to the School Management committee and chairman of the SECL on 09.07.2008 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, a notice was issued on 2.08.2008 also. On finding no proper reply, the impugned action was taken. He would further submit that the School Management Committee is not following the Regulation 73 of the Board of Secondary Education, C.G. Regulations, 1965. the students of the school were attached to the Government Higher Secondary School, Bankimongra, which is in the interest of the students, and thus, no harm is caused to the students. In addition to it, Shri Patel would further submit that the return filed in case of Shikshan Samiti, Ghurdeva v. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, C.G. Board of Secondary Education, Raipur (W.P.(C) No. 4942/2008) may be treated as response to the instant petition and the same may be taken into consideration for disposal of this petition.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
It is evident that the School Management Committee or the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. which is alleged to have been running the school, have not been arrayed as party respondents.
The main ground of the petitioners to challenge the impugned order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure P/1) is that the condition for recognition as well as de-recognition is provided under regulation 54 to 69 of the Regulations, 1965. Even one of the conditions under regulation 61 of the Regulations, 1965, inter alia, provides, that the scales of pay of the Principals, Head Masters, Lecturer, Teachers, Clerks and other staff shall not be lower than those sanctioned for the corresponding staff in Government institutions, which have been deleted subsequently by the notification "Manyata Viniyam, 1994" (Annexure P/7). Thus, on the ground that the teachers and other staff of the school are not being granted salary and allowances at par with those of the government schools, cannot be the ground for de-recognizing the educational institution, which has been recognized by the respondent-Board under the provisions of the Regulations, 1965. Regulation 73 of the Regulations, 1965 provides, inter alia, that the scales of pay of the staff, in educational institutions, which are not aided, there shall be a scale of pay not less than that in Government educational institutions.
It is well settled that a provision of the statute be interpreted in such a manner as not make any of the provisions redundant or otiose. Thus, if the said contention of the petitioner that since the clause of payment of salary and other allowances at par with the government schools, has been deleted from section 61, which provides for recognition and de-recognition, is accepted, the basic purpose of the Regulations will be defeated. All the provisions of the Regulations, 1965 have to be given full effect to.
The Board, after having granted recognition cannot be denuded of its power to regulate the educational institutions by ensuring that in order to maintain educational standard of the institutions, proper payment of salary and allowances has to be made to the teachers and other staff. Accordingly, even if the provisions under the conditions of recognition in respect of payment of salary has been deleted, the Board is competent to exercise its power under the provisions of section 73 of the Regulations, 1965. Further, the Secretary of the respondent Board is fully competent to pass the order of de-recognition. It cannot be held that there is any infirmity or illegality as the impugned order was not signed by the Chairman, but by the Secretary of the Board. The Board has already taken care of the students studying in the school, which failed to comply with the second part of regulation 73 of the Regulations, 1965.
Bare perusal of second part of Regulation 73 of the Regulations, 1965 makes it clear that a scale of pay, the minimum of which, shall not be less that in Government educational institutions. It does not contemplate equal salary and allowance, but only the scale of pay, which should not be minimum than that in Government educational institutions. Thus, the school management committee or the society running the school are at liberty to approach the Board again explaining the pay scale of the teachers and staff working in the concerned school. The Board may reconsider the case of the school, if, after improvement or otherwise, the school managing committee or the society approaches the Board again.
In the instant case, the facts are peculiar. The teachers, who are claiming salary and other allowances at par with that of government institutions, on the basis of 5th pay Commission, are opposing de-recognition of the school for not complying with the provisions of Regulations, 1965. The school Management Committee or the Society running the school are not aggrieved as they have not come forward to challenge the de-recognition order passed by the respondent Board. On that account also, this petition cannot be considered. As a sequel, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.