Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K. Krishnamacharayulu & Ors vs Sri Venkateswara Hindu College Of ... on 21 February, 1997
In K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara
Hindu College of Engg., (1997) 3 SCC 571 : 1997 SCC
(L&S) 841, relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellants, executive instructions were issued by the
Government that the scales of pay of Laboratory Assistants
as nonteaching staff of private colleges shall be on a par with
the government employees and this Court held that even
though there were no statutory rules, the Laboratory
Assistants as non-teaching staff of private college were
entitled to the parity of the pay scales as per the executive
instructions of the Government and the writ jurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide
enough to issue a writ for payment of pay on a par with
government employees. In the present case, there are no
executive instructions issued by the Government requiring
private schools to pay the same salary and allowances to
their teachers as are being paid to teachers of government
schools or government-aided schools.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of M.P. vs Sharique A. Ali . on 7 January, 2014
However, in the appeal preferred by the State Government
before the Apex Court, the Apex Court initially vide its order dated
12.12.2013 reported in 2013 SCC OnLine SC 1402 (State of M.P. & Others
v. Dr. Sharique Ali) by taking on record the affidavit filed by the State
Government proposing to give grant in-aid to the employees, who were still
in service at the existing approved scale till their superannuation, held
that the pay scale of the teaching and non-teaching staff employed in the
private aided schools/colleges shall be at par with the teaching and non-
teaching staff of the Government schools/colleges and later on, while
disposing of the matter finally, vide order dated 07.01.2014 in the case of
State of M.P. & Others v. Dr. Sharique Ali reported in (2020) 20 SCC 450,
has declared the law by a judgment in rem holding that the Madhya Pradesh
Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha Adhiniyam, 1978 , as amended by the Madhya
Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya
Karmcharyon Ke Vetno Ka Sandaya) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2000 shall not
be made applicable to the respondents and other similarly situated persons
therein, with a further clarification that the amended Act would be applicable
to those Teachers/Lecturers/Non-teaching staffs, who were appointed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26827
7 WP-20900-2024
private aided educational institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh, after
promulgation of the amended Act, thus, it was quite evident that the amended
Act of 2000 was not applicable in the case of the petitioner, who was an
appointee in the respondent/Institute before 22.08.2000, i.e. the date of
promulgation of the Act of 2000, and thus, for the payment of the petitioner's
salary, the provisions pertaining to maintenance grant were applicable
whereby the State Government was liable to release 100% grant to the
respondent/Institute for the payment of salary to the petitioner and other
teaching and non-teaching staff. It was, thus, argued that the Respondent
No.5/Institute was responsible for not getting grant from the State
Government.
Alok Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2021
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26827
32 WP-20900-2024
[53] So far as availability of alternate remedy is concerned, this Court
has in preceeding paras held that Respondent No. 5/Institution, though not a
statutory body within the meaning of Article 12, is engaged in public
functions, receives substantial Government aid, and is subject to close
supervision of the affiliating University. Its actions infringing the personal,
legal rights of the petitioner, therefore, would attract the writ jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the
objection raised by the respondents regarding availability of an alternative
remedy under Clause 42 of the College Code would not be absolute bar,
thus, the objection stands rejected. The judgments in Alok Kumar Choubey
v. State of M.P., 2021 (1) MPLJ 348 (DB), and Sandeep Jain v. State of M.P.
(W.P. No. 13260/2020, decided on 01.03.2021), make it clear that where
allegations pertain to jurisdictional error, violation of statutory provisions, or
breach of natural justice, the existence of an alternate remedy cannot bar the
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Satimbla Sharma & Ors vs St.Paul Sr.Secondary School & Ors on 11 August, 2011
[49] In the matter of Satimbla Sharma (supra), the school involved
therein received grant-in-aid from the Government of Himachal Pradesh for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26827
26 WP-20900-2024
the period between 1967 and 1976. From the year 1977-1978, the
Government of Himachal Pradesh stopped the grant-in-aid and in such
circumstances, the teachers of the school were paid less than the teachers of
the Government schools and the Government-aided schools in the State of
Himachal Pradesh, which led to filing of a writ petition before the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh seeking a direction to pay the salary and
allowances at par with the teachers of Government schools and the
Government-aided schools. The learned Single Judge directed the
respondents therein to pay to the writ petitioners therein salary and
allowances at par with their counterparts working in the Government schools
from the dates, they were entitled to and at the rates admissible from time to
time, which was challenged in letters patent appeal before the Division
Bench of the High Court. The said appeal came to be allowed and the writ
petition filed by the teachers was dismissed.
St. Marys Education Society vs Rajendra Prasad Bhargava on 24 August, 2022
[51] In one of the recent pronouncements of the Apex Court in the
case of St. Mary's Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava &
Ors. reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498 , the entire law on the subject has been
discussed threadbare. In the said case, the Apex Court has held that while a
private unaided minority institution might be touching the spheres of public
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26827
30 WP-20900-2024
function by performing a public duty, its employees have no right of
invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution in respect of matters relating to service where they are not
governed or controlled by the statutory provision.
M.P. State Agro Industries Development ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007
[54] Further, the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. State Agro
Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Jahan Khan, reported in (2007) 10
SCC 88 has held as under :
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
(iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In these
circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a
bar. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., State of H.P. v.
Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Sanjana M. Wig v.