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 Shetty, 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 THE 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 granted.      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. No. 129/93 and batch. Respondent No.1 is a Trust which is a recognized Institution running primary education schools. It claimed for grant-in-aid for one clerk and one  peon,  i.e.,  non-teaching  staff.  The  appellants rejected the claim. When they approached under Art. 226, the High Court  interpreted sub-rule  (3) of  Rule  115  of  the Bombay Primary  Education Act,  1949 holding  that  while  a institution running  more than one school is given grant-in-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

aid to  non-teaching staff  the refusal  thereof to a single school is  violative of  Art. 14.  Direction, therefore, was given to  accord grant-in-aid  to the  non-teaching staff of the respondent’s school.      The question,  therefore, is  whether the  Institutions running single  school are  entitled to grant-in-aid for the non-teaching staff  like clerk  & peon. Rule 115 (1) and (3) reads thus:      Sub-rule (1).  "Normally the  grant paid      to an  approved private  school  in  any      year is the grant paid for that year and      shall be  calculated on  the  number  of      pupils  in  average  attendance  in  the      school during the preceding year.      Provided that :-      (i) grant  to an approved private school      during the  first year  of its existence      shall be  based on  the number of pupils      in  average  attendance  in  the  school      during the  first  half  of  the  school      year. Such  grant  shall  not,  however,      exceed three  fourths of  the  estimated      expenditure of  the school of the pay of      its teacher, during the year; and      (ii) no  grant  to  an  approved  school      shall be  paid in  any year  unless  the      average attendance  of pupils  is 25 and      above during the year.      Explanation - In the case of two or more      approved   schools   conducted   by   an      Association  or   Society,  the  average      daily attendance  shall be calculated by      adding together  the  actual  number  of      daily attendance  of pupils  of all  the      schools conducted  by the Association 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      Director from  time to  time educational      bodies  or   associations  conducting  a      number  of  approved  schools  shall  be      entitled   to    grant    on    overhead      expenditure 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. An 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 towards salary expenses of      teaching staff is concerned, it is being      paid  to  all  the  teacher  of  private      schools irrespective of the fact whether      an institution  or trust runs one school      or more  than one school. The percentage      of grant payable towards Salary expenses      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    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.      through  cheque.   Moreover   additional      teachers as  aforesaid over the strength      of   200    students    undertake    the      responsibility    of     administrative,      clerical and other misc. kind of work if      necessary. Even  where  the  institution      runs more  than once  school, the  grant      towards  the  salary  expenses  of  non-      teaching staff  is not being paid. There      is not  a single  primary school  in the      state of  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  any  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.