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