Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. According to the writ petitioners, qualifications have been provided for in the Madhya Pradesh Viswa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (for brevity 'the Adhiniyam, 1973'). Reference has been made to the "College Code" which provides that the scales of pay for different categories of teachers in the College including the Principal shall be such as prescribed from time to time by the State Government for similar categories in Government Colleges. In essence, the pleading is to be the effect that as per the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1973, and the mandate of the College Code, the payment of salary to the staff in aided Colleges is equivalent to that of Government Colleges. Reference has been made to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the enactment. It has been Putforth that keeping in view the objects and reasons of the Act and with the pious obligation for betterment of education, the Legislature made it incumbent upon the State Government to take up 100% responsibility of payment of salary of teachers and other employees which was at a lesser percentage earlier on. The letter circular dated 2-4-1981 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Siksha Anudan Ayog has been brought on record as Annexure B-10. It is set forth that an institutional fund was created for payment of salary of teachers and other employees for which a separate head of treasury account was opened and the State Government was placing to the credit of the fund in advance the sum for payment of 100% salary of teachers and other employees. It is apposite to mention here that there is reference to various definitions, namely, 'institution maintenance grant' to highlight that the State Government had the control over the appointment and payment of salary of the teaching staff and none could be appointed without prior approval of the Stale Government and none could be removed without its prior approval. Reference has been made to M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Institutional Fund) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') wherein provision has been made that the salary shall be credited to the institutional fund by 20th of each month. According to the writ petitioners, the grant-in-aid covered revised scales of pay from time to time for teachers as prescribed by the U.G.C. in order to maintain parity between the aided educational institutions and the Government run educational institutions. Respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 3-11-1988 accepted the salary as per the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1986 and full 100% maintenance grant was paid by the State Government. Respondent No. 4, the Central Government vide its Notification No. F-1/22/97-VI, dated 27-7-1998, addressed to all the Education Secretaries of the State on the subject of revision of pay scales of teachers of Colleges stating that in discharging its constitutional responsibility the Central Government have taken a decision to continue to provide financial assistance to the State Government which was to adopt and implement the schemes of revision of pay scales subject to the terms and conditions which, inter alia, provide that the Central Government would provide 80% of the additional expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision and after 31-3-2000 the entire liability of the revision of pay scales could be taken over by the State Government. It is clear that the Government of India has envisaged to apply the benefit of revised scales of pay to all other College teachers without any discrimination between Government and Non-Government College teachers receiving grant-in-aid. It is Putforth that the State Government adopted the scheme and accordingly accepted 80% assistance from the Centre. The U.G.C vide its order No. F/3/1/94 PS, dated 24-12-1998 addressed to the Vice-Chancellors of all the Universities requiring them that the revision of pay scales would be applicable to every institution affiliated to the University. It is put forth that though the State Government had accepted the assistance from the University Grants Commission, it failed to perform its duty and shifted the responsibility to the management as it imposed an unauthorised, illegal and arbitrary condition to the effect that from 1-4-2000 additional burden due to revision of scales of pay would be borne by the management of Non-Government educational institutions. A copy of the communication has been brought on record as Annexure B-14. Respondent No. 2 sent an undertaking to accept full burden of revision of pay by private educational institutions themselves. Vide letter No. CGS/463/2000, petitioner No. 3 wrote to respondent No. 2 that the additional burden of revision of pay scale cannot be borne by the petitioner-institutions since 100% maintenance grant was being disbursed by the State Government. While the matter stood thus, on 23-2-2000, the petitioner-institutions received a letter from respondent No. 1 for sending an undertaking of paying full revised salary by the petitioner-institutions. Inability was expressed by the managements of the institutions. Certain assertions have been made as to how correspondences went on between the representatives of the teachers' Union and the Association which run various educational institutions to the people in the helm of affairs not to withdraw the grant by enacting any amendment, but contrary to their expectations Ordinance No. 2, dated 13-4-2000 was promulgated by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh under Article 213 of the Constitution of India.

27. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed in W.P. No. 1104/2000. It has been clarified therein that the petitioners have assailed the orders dated 27-5-2000 (Annexurc P-9), 28-10-1999 (Annexure P-13) and 12-1-2000 (Annexure P-15) and the Ordinance published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, Extra-ordinary, dated 13-4-2000 (Annexure P-16) and the constitutional validity of the amended Act. It is putforth that appointment of teachers employed in various colleges is made by the State Government in accordance with the procedure laid down and the petitioners from their date of appointment have received salary from the respondents which have been granted by the State Government. It is highlighted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the original Act was to eradicate rampant evil and the main object was to ensure payment of full salary to teachers of such educational institutions in time. It has been further pleaded that by virtue of the amendment, a discrimination has been caused which is impermissible in law. It has been setforth that the pica of respondents as regards the financial crisis is nothing but an excuse for their arbitrary action. The respondents have issued various instructions from time to time charging fee towards different heads like building fee, development fee, fee for cultural activities, sports, library, whereas no infrastructure have been issued by the respondents for collection of tuition fee. The fees collected under different heads are fully utilised by the management which is verifiable from the Government Audit Report of the aided institutions. In accordance with the policy of the Government and the institutions, no tuition fee is chargeable from girls' students and where the same has been directed by the State Government to reimburse the tuition fee as incurred by the respective management in relation to the tuition fee of girls' students, but no reimbursement has yet been made by the respondents. The report of the Committee to discontinue aid to the private institutions is nothing but a biased and arbitrary report of the Committee. As pleaded, the Central Government provides financial assistance to the State Government for adopting and implementing the scheme of revision of payscales. For the initial five years U.G.C. gives 80% financial assistance and 20% expenditure is borne by the State Government. For the remaining five years the State Government has to bear 100% financial burden. This norm is being followed by the U.G.C.; and the State Government of M.P. for more than 20 years. But for the first time, the financial liability has been passed over and transferred in terms to college management. The submission of respondents that most of the colleges are running successfully without the aid of the Government is a false and misleading statement, in as much as those colleges are nothing but teaching shops where they take responsibility right from admission to the examination and running in the flats and teachers appointed by them are holding no qualification and, therefore, it cannot be said that they are supplementing the duties of the State. Their selection is on the basis of pick and choose method having no relevance to the qualification. The Government of M.P. has collected a certain sum towards the contributory provident fund of the employee right from the year 1960 and has transferred the same to the pension fund and now at this juncture, after passage of such long span of time, the State Government cannot absolve from its responsibilities to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioners, whereas it is the bounden duty of the respondents to pay pension to the petitioners as it has collected the contributions towards C.P.F. It has been putforth that in accordance with the various clauses of the College Code, the institution cannot collect higher fee and, therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the Government to provide salaries of teachers of the Non-Government aided institutions. Certain averments have been made with regard to refuting the allegations made in the return relating to Safia Collage, Bhopal to show how the highly qualified persons have been employed in the educational institutions. As putforth, the allegation that private institutions cater to very small number of students in incorrect, inasmuch as due to better quality of education imparted in such institutions, the number of students is quite large and the same is verifiable from the Government records. The shifting of responsibility on the management has been seriously criticized in the rejoinder.

Thus, the purpose was to see that machinery is provided in the most appropriate manner so that the teachers get full salary. We may also refer to the Madhya Pradesh Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha (Institution Fund) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as '1983 Rules'), wherein provision was made for salary to be deposited in the accounts and to see that the teachers do not suffer at the hands of the management. In this context, it is useful to make a reference to the "College Code" (Statute No. 28) wherein the concept of foundation of Society, Governing Body and the duties of the Governing Body have been referred. In the College Code, it has been provided that "Teachers" means members of the teaching staff of a college and includes the Principal, Part VI of the College Code provides with regard to appointment of teachers of the College stipulating qualifications and other criteria. There is provision also for suspension, penalty and disciplinary proceeding. The College Code also deals with Provident Fund and Leave. The College Code also provides that the scales of pay of different categories of teachers in the College including the Principal shall be such as are prescribed from time to time by the State Government for similar categories in Government Colleges.

60. Now presently, we shall proceed to state the contention whether by virtue of the amendment, the Legislature has introduced certain things which are absolutely unreasonable and irrational so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution. Before we delve into this arena, we would like to refer to the amended provisions which have been referred to earlier. On a perusal of the dictionary clause of the earlier Act, "maintenance grant" meant the grant payable to the institution by the State Government. The said definition has been changed to mean, a grant given to the institution as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time. The definition "Teacher" has undergone a sea-change. The term "salary" in the unamended Act included pay, dearness allowance, but presently it has undergone a change to mean, salary and other allowances payable to a teacher or an employee at the rate as may be notified by the institution. Then comes the constitution of "institutional fund" and the "fee collectable from students". It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by change of definitions of "Teacher" and "salary", the State Government has, in fact, abolished the "grant" in a phased manner as the notification would indicate and has left the teachers at the mercy of the institution. It is proponed by them that educational institutions may provide any salary to the teachers as may be notified by the institution. It is putforth by them that the same runs contrary to the "College Code" as the College Code stipulates that the salary has to be paid at par with a Government teacher. It is submitted by Mr. Tankha that there is no prohibition that the institutions would be at liberty to pay more.