SUSHMITA BASU AND ORS.versusBALLYGUNGE SIKSHA SAMITY AND ORS.

A                         SUSHMITA BASU AND ORS.
                                     v.
                    BALL YGUNGE SIKSHA SAMITY AND ORS.

                                SEPTEMBER 22, 2006

B               [H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]


          Education/Educational Institutions:

          Teachers of private unaided school-Seeking pay scales as
C recommended by Third Pay Commission-Entitlement-Held: Not entitled, as
    the salaries and emoluments of teachers of private unaided institutions were
    not subject matter of reference to the Third Pay Commission.

          Constitution of India, 1950:

D         Article 226-Writ of mandamus by teachers of private unaided
    educational institution seeking hike in pay scales-Maintainability of-
    Held, not maintainable as public law element is not involved

          The teachers of a recognized private educational institution filed Writ
E Petition in the High Court seeking issue of a writ of mandamus to their
    institution to implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
    including their implementation with retrospective effect. Subsequent to the
    filing of the Writ Petition, petitioners other than the five appellants herein,
    withdrew from the Writ Petition on their reaching an understanding with
    the authorities of the school. The five appellants pursued the Writ Petition.
F   Single judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition. The Management
    successfully filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence
    the present appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

G        HELD: I. There was no statutory provision, rule or Government order
  directing the private unaided educational institutions to implement the
  recommendations of the Third Pay Commission especially in the context of
  the fact that the salaries and emoluments of teachers of private unaided
  institutions was not a subject matter of reference to the Third Pay Commission.
                                                                        1509-D-EI
H                                        506
                   SU SH MITA BASU r. BALL YGUNGESIKSHA SAMITY                 507
       2.1. The fact that a few are not satisfied is no ground for interference        A
by Court or for grant of relief in their favour when by and large the position
adopted by the institution is found to be fair and just and is accepted by all
other teachers. There has been just treatment of the teachers by the first
respondent-Institution and there is no reason to interfere even on the ground
that the appellants are being treated unfairly by their employer, the                  B
educational institution, or on the basis that this is a case in which the
conscience of the court is shocked, compelling it to enter the arena to afford
relief to the teachers. (510-B-DI

      Reserve Bank of1ndia & Ors. v. C.N. Sahasranaman & Ors., (19861 2
S.C.R. 881, relied on.      .,_
                                                                                       c
     Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India
& Ors., (1987( l S.C.R. 238, referred to.

       2.2. Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of mandamus by the court against a private educational institution like         D
the first respondent would be justified only if a public law element is involved
and if it is only a private law remedy no Writ Petition would lie. A writ of
mandamus could not have been issued to the first respondent in this case.
                                                                       (510-E-F(

     K. Krishnamacha1y11/11 & Ors. v. Shri Venkateswara Hindu College of               E
Engineering and Anr., (1997( 2 S.C.R. 368, relied on.

      3. The profession of teaching is a-noble profession. It is not an
employment in the sense of it being merely an earner of bread and butter. A
teacher fulfills a great role in the life of the nation. He is the 'guru'. It is the
                                                          to
teacher, who moulds its future citizens by imparting his students not only             F
knowledge, but also a sense of duty, righteousness and dedication to the welfare
of the nation, in addition to other qualities of head and heart. If teachers
clamour for more salaries and perquisites, the normal consequence in the
case of private educational institutions, if the demand is conceded, would be
to pass on the burden to the students by increasing the fees payable by the            G
students. (510-F-H(

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1468 of2005.

      From the Judgment and Final Order dated 29.2.2000 of the High Court
ofCalci.:tta in A.P.O.T. No. 460of1999.
                                                                                       H
    508                     SUPREME l'OllRT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A          Jitendra Kumar Sharma, Raja Chatterjee, Sachin Das, G.S. Chatterjee and
     P.N. Jha for the Appellants.




                                                                                      -
        P.P. Rao, Dipanker P. Gupta, Dhruv Agarwal. Vikram Bajaj, Sanjeev
    Kumar (for M/s. Khaitan & Co.) and Tara Chandra Shanna for the Respondents.

B         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. I. The appellants are teachers of a
  recognized private school known as Ballygunge Siksha Sadan in Calcutta in
  the State of West Bengal. Originally they along with 26 others filed W.P. No.
  4139 of 1992 in the High Court of Calcutta praying for the issue of writ of
C mandamus directing the authorities of the school to fix the salaries of teaching
  and non-teaching staff of the school and to remove all anomalies in the scales
  of pay as recommended by the Third Pay Commission as extended to other
  Government aided schools and government schools. Subsequent to the filing
  of the Writ Petition, petitioners other than the five appellants herein, withdrew
D from the Writ Petition on their reaching an understanding with the authorities
  of the school. The five appellants pursued the Writ Petition. A learned single
  judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Director
  of School Education to enforce parity in payment to the Writ Petitioners in
  pay-scales and dearness allowances on par with the government aided
  institutions and to consider whether theri: has been any discrimination or
E anomaly in the fixation of pay-scales of teachers by the first respondent
  management. with respect to the teaching staff in the institution. On appeal
  by the management, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal
  and set aside the decision of the learned single judge. Feeling aggrieved
  thereby, the five teachers who were pursuing the Writ Petition, came to this
F Court with this appeal. Pending the appeal, appellant No.5 died and appellant
  No. 4 withdrew from the appeal, with the result that only three of the teachers
  of the institution remain as appellants in this appeal to pursue the cause
  originally put forward.

          2. There is no dispute that the institution in which the appellants are
G working is a recognized private educational institution in the State of West
    Bengal. In the State of West Bengal there are government schools, aided
    schools and unaided private schools. In this case, we are not concerned with
    aided schools or government schools. As far as private schools like the one
    run by respondent No. I are concerned, they do not receive any aid from the
    government, but. they do get from the government dearness allowance
H   component of the approved teachers working in the school. There is no
         SUSHMITA BASUl'.BALLYGUNGESIKSHA SAMITY[PK BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.) 509

    dispute that the recommendations of the First Pay Commission and that of           A
    the Second Pay Commission, though they did not cover private unaided
    schools, were implemented by the schools as part of their agreement with the


-
    teachers. Though, the management also implemented the recommendations of
    the Third Pay Commission in the sense that the salaries of the teachers were
    hiked in terms of the said report, the institution refused to give retrospective   B
    effect to the enhancement. In other words, the institution refused to give
    effect to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with effect from
    1.1.1988, as recommended by the Commission and as imp.lemented by the
    government.

              3. It was mainly complaining about the refusal of the management to C
       implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with effect from
       I. 1.1988 retrospectively, that the teachers went to court. We asked learned
      Senior Counsel for the appellants as to whether there was any Act, statutory
      rule or even Government Order directing private unaided educational
      institut10ns to implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
      especially in the context of the fact that the salaries and emoluments of D
      teachers of private unaided institutions was not a subject matter of reference
      to the Third Pay Commission. Learned counsel fairly submitted that there was
      no statutory provision, Rule or binding Order, but referred to the decision of
    · this Court in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union
      of India & Ors., [ 1987] I S.C.R.238 and submitted that the principle recognized E
      therein should be applied to teachers like the appellants as well. Learned
      counsel conceded that there was no provision corresponding to Section I0
      of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 in the Bengal Act. But the submission
      was that the appellants were approved teachers and they were also doing the
      same work as teachers of government schools and aided schools and in the
      circumstances 'equal pay for equal work' principle could be directed to be F
      implemented and in that context the appellants could be granted relief. This
      was met by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the responrlents by pointing
      out that the institution had not only implemented the recommendations of the
      Third Pay Commission but has also implemented the recommendations of the
      Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions, though it was not bound to do so and G
      there could be no grievance that teachers are being paid salaries that are not
      comparable with that of the teachers of government schools and aided schools.
      With reference to the pleadings, it was pointed out by the teamed Senior
      Counsel that the teachers of the first respondent - Institution, in fact, were
      enjoying some additional benefits which are not available to teachers of
      government institutions and aided institutions. It was also pointed out that H
     510                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A out of the very many teachers in the school, only three of them, the appellants
   before us, have refused to enter into an agreement with the First Respondent
   and as observed by this Court in Reserre Bank of India & Ors v. C.N.
  Sahasranaman and Ors.• [1986] 2 S.C.R. 881, the fact that a few are not
  satisfied, is no ground for interference by court or for grant of relief in their
  favour when by and large the position adopted by the institution is found            ...
B to be fair and just and is accepted by all other teachers. We find considerable
  merit in the submissions on behalf of the respondents. In the absence of a
  statutory provision, we are not in a position to agree with learned counsel
  for the appellants that interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the
  Constitution is warranted in this case. We find on the whole that there has
C been just treatment of the teachers by the first respondent- Institution and
  there is no reason to interfere even on the ground that the appellants are
  being treated unfairly by their employer. the educational institution, or on the
  basis that this is a case in which the conscience of the court is shocked,
  compelling it to enter the arena to afford relief to the teachers.

D        4. In this context, we must also notice that the Writ Petition in the High
  Court is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing a private educational
  institution to implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
  including their implementation with retrospective effect. Even the decision
  relied on by learned counsel for the appellants, namely, K. Krishnamacharyulu
E & Ors. v. Shri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr., [1997)
  2 S.C.R. 368 shows that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
  India to issue a writ of mandamus by the court against a private educational
  institution like the first respondent herein, would be justified only if a public
  law element is involved and if it is only a private law remedy no Writ Petition
  would lie. We think that even going by the ratio of that decision, a writ of
F mandamus could not have been issued to the first respondent in this case.
         5. We must remember that the profession of teaching is a noble
  profession. It is not an employment in the sense of it being merely an earner
  of bread and butter. A teacher fulfils a great role in the life of the nation. He
  is the 'guru'. It is the teacher, who moulds its future citizens by imparting to
G his students not only knowledge, but also a sense of duty, righteousness and
  dedication to the welfare of the nation, in addition to other qualities of head
  and heart. If teachers clamour for more salaries and perquisites, the normal
  consequence in the case of private educational institutions, if the demand is
  conceded, would be to pass on the burden to the students by increasing the
H fees payable by the students. Teachers must ask themselves whether they
           SUSHMITA BASU"· BALLYGUNGESIKSHASAMITY lP.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.) 511

    should be the cause for putting education beyond the ken of children of              A
    parents of average families with average incomes. A teacher's profession calls
    for a little sacrifice in the interests of the nation. The main asset of a teacher
    is his students former and present. Teachers who have lived up to ideals are


-   held in great esteem by their disciples. The position of the Guru, the teacher,
    in our ethos is equal to that of God (Matha Pitha Guru Daivam ). The teachers
    of today must ensure that this great Indian concept and the reverential
    position they hold, is not sacrificed at the altar of avarice.
                                                                                         B

          6. The Division Bench of the High court has held that there is no
    ground to interfere in the case on hand and have rightly set aside the
    directions issued by the single judge. We find no reason to interfere with the       C
    decision of the Division Bench of the High Court. We therefore confirm that
    decision and dismiss this appeal. We make no order as to costs.

    D.G.                                                         Appeal dismissed.