Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Rule 3 (II) provides, as under:-

"3(II) The institution shall promptly comply with the instructions issued by the Department for the proper running of the institution."

10. The aforesaid provision has been inserted on the principle of accountability as regards the non-Government educational institutions are concerned. The said institutions cannot claim any privilege, immunity or any exemption under the Rules as regards the applicability of the Rules qua management-employees relationship under the garb of private educational institutions being not responsible or accountable to the State since they are obviously deriving grant-in-aid as, regards the payment of funds for proper upkeep, welfare and running of the said institutions. It is not open to the said institutions to plead that they are not answerable to the public at-large which includes besides the students and their guardians/parents members of teaching staff as well as other employees who are devoting their precious time whole heartedly for the welfare of the students who shall be future citizens of the country who are receiving education from the said institutions. The aforesaid contentions have been vehemently contended at the Bar by Mr. Man Singh Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 566/88 and Mr. J.M. Saxena, learned standing counsel representing the respondent No. 1. In the reply to show cause notice filed by the respondent No. 2 the said respondent has taken a stand that Shri S. S. Jain Subodh Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur has been receiving the grant-in-aid only to the extent of 80% as regards pay and allowances of the employees and Teachers of the said institutions are concerned while no grant-in-aid is provided to the school by the State Government in respect of medical bills, travelling allowances and gratuity. As regards appointment of Teachers, it has been stated in the reply that the said appointments are made with the approval of the State Government and in fact the Selection Committee makes their appointment which consists of one representative of the Education Department and the said Committee comprises of atleast 5 members. From this fact, it is apparent that the School is functioning under the overall control and supervision of the Education Department of the State and hence it is bound by the Rules and Regulations as are applicable to the Government educational institutions and is consequently bound to safeguard the interest of the teachers who are on its pay rolls. It is undisputed fact that the aided or recognised institutions have to conform to all the norms and prescribed standards of education as laid down by the Board of Secondary Education and hence it would be totally incorrect to state that the State Government or its functionaries do not exercise any control over the functioning of the aided institutions and in case the Government instructions are not followed by the said institutions receiving grant-in-aid, in my view it is always open to the State Government to stop giving grant-in-aid to the said institutions. Moreover, the State Government is equally responsible to contribute its respective prescribed share under the Rules for proper maintenance and upkeep of the said institutions apart from the grant-in-aid which the said institutions are receiving regularly. Thus, its own resources coupled with financial aid received from the concerned institutions as well as State Government, the respondent-institution is in well equipped position to ensure proper management and upkeep of the said institutions by augmenting its own resources. It has been provided in Clause (5) of Appendix-I of the Rules of 1963 that the Education Department will nominate one member on the Managing Committee who will be a Senior Education Officer or eminent educationists. Note 3 of Clause (7) further provides that while making nomination the department will see that the Officer to be nominated is not inferior in status to the head of the institution concerned. Thus, it is apparent that the Education Department of the State exercises an active control over the said educational institutions which are receiving grant-in-aid under the Rules of 1963 and thus it is apparent that it is not permissive or evasive but actual and effective control and overall supervision of the State under which the said Educational Institutions receiving grant-in-aid are expected to function and hence they are not entitled to claim any immunity at their own whims and fancies contrary to Rules. From the perusal of Appendix II to Rules 1963, it is apparent that all the Educational instutions are required to enforce the strict sense of discipline amongst the students as well as from the perusal of Appendix III to Rules 1963, it is also apparent that a form of agreement has been prescribed to be executed by the teachers who are employed by the management of the said institutions subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated therein. Clause (14) of Appendix III deals with terms and conditions of appointment of the teachers which provides that the Committee will not except with the previous sanction to be obtained in writing of the Director of Education, exercise its right under Clause (8) between January 1 and March 31, of any calendar year. Clause (1) of Appendix III provides that the Teacher has to be employed in the first instance for one year on probation and period of probation shall in no case exceed two years and for the option to the management to terminate his services if he is not found competent or otherwise suitable before the expiry of his probationary period. If the teacher is confirmed after the expiry of his probationary period, the teacher shall be employed in regular pay-scale in the Grade admissible to him as per Rules.