# DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER, MAHSANA ETC. ETC v. VIDOTEJAK MANDAL AND ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 556
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-08-04
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/district-primary-education-officer-mahsana-etc-etc-v-vidotejak-mandal-and-ors-13156
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Bombay Primmy Education Act, 1949 :
C
Rule 115(3)-lnstitutions mnning Single School-Wliether entitled to
grant-in-aid for non-teaching staff-Held No.
Respondent No. 1 is a Trust which is a recognised institution running primary education schools. It claimed grant- in-aid for one clerk and
one peon, i.e., non-teaching staff. The appellants rejected the claim. When
D
the Trust approached under Art. 226, the High Court interpreted sub-rule
(3) of Rule 115 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1949 holding that
while institution running more than one school is given grant-in-aid to
non-teaching staff, the refusal thereof to a single school is violative of Art.
14, Hence this appeal.
E
F
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: Not only as a matter of rule and also practice, no money is
being paid by way of grant-in-aid or otherwise to any 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. The High Court was, therefore, not right in ·
holding that there is a discrimination in denying the payment of grant-inaid to the respondents for the non-teaching staff. [559-A-B]

## Text

A
B
DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER,
MAHSANA ETC. ETC.
V.
VIDOTEJAK MANDAL AND ORS. ETC.
AUGUST 4, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Bombay Primmy Education Act, 1949 :
C
Rule 115(3)-lnstitutions mnning Single School-Wliether entitled to
grant-in-aid for non-teaching staff-Held No.
Respondent No. 1 is a Trust which is a recognised institution running primary education schools. It claimed grant- in-aid for one clerk and
one peon, i.e., non-teaching staff. The appellants rejected the claim. When
D
the Trust approached under Art. 226, the High Court interpreted sub-rule
(3) of Rule 115 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1949 holding that
while institution running more than one school is given grant-in-aid to
non-teaching staff, the refusal thereof to a single school is violative of Art.
14, Hence this appeal.
E
F
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: Not only as a matter of rule and also practice, no money is
being paid by way of grant-in-aid or otherwise to any 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. The High Court was, therefore, not right in ·
holding that there is a discrimination in denying the payment of grant-inaid to the respondents for the non-teaching staff. [559-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7091 of
G
1995 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.94 of the Gujarat High
Court in L.P.A. No. 129/93 in Sp. C.A.No. 4255 of 1992.
Narayan Shetty and S.C. Patel for the Appellants in C.A. No.
H 7091/95.
556
DIST. PRIMARY EDN. OFFICER v. V. MANDAL
557
S.K. Dholakia and Mrs. H. Wahi for the State of Gujarat.
A
R.P. Bhatt and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned, Leave granted.
B
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. No. 129/93 and batch. Respondent No. 1 is a Trust which is a
recognised Institution running primary education schools. It claimed for C
grant-in-aid for one clerk and one peon, i.e., non- teaching staff. The
appellants rejected the claim. When they approached under Art. 226, the
High Court interpreted sub-rule (3) of Rule 115 of the Bombay Primary
Education Act, 1949 holding that while a institution running more than one
school is given grant-in-aid to non-teaching staff the refusal thereof to a
single school is violative of Art. 14. Direction, therefore, was given to D
accord grant-in-aid to the non-teaching staff of the respondent's school.
The question, therefore, is whether the institutions running single
school are entitled to grant-in-aid for the non-teaching staff like clerk &
peon. Rule 115 (1) and (3) reads thus :
E
Sub-Rule (1). "Normally the grant paid to an approved private
school in any year is the grant paid for that year and shall be
calculated on the number of pupils in average attendance in the
school during the preceding year.
Provided that:-
F
(1) grant to an approved private school during the first year of its
existence shall be based on the number of pupils in average
attendance in the school during the first half of the school year. G
Such grant shall not, however, exceed three fourths of the estimated expenditure of the school of the pay of its teacher, during
the year: and
(ii) no grant to an approved school shall be paid in any year unless
the average attendance of pupils is 25 and above during the year. H
A
B
c
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
Explanation - In the case of two or more approved schools conducted by an Association or Society, the average daily attendance
shall be calculated by adding together the actual number of daily
attendance of pupils of all the schools conducted by the Association 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
Director from time to time educational bodies or associations
conducting a number of approved schools shall be entitled to grant
on overhead expenditure 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. An additional
affidavit has been filed on July 11; 1995 in which Dr. l.M. Patel, the
D
Director of Primary Education stated in paragraph 2 thus :
E
F
G
H
"That the controversy involved in this case is limited to the payment
of grant payable to non-teaching staff only. As far as grant towards
salary expenses of teaching staff is concerned, it is being paid to
all the teacher of private schools irrespective of the fact whether
an institution or trust runs one school or more than one school.
The percentage of grant payable towards Salary expenses 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 asAnnexure "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 to teachers are
directly paid by Govt. through cheque. Moreover additional
teachers as aforesaid over the strength of 200 students undertake
the responsibility of administrative, clerical· and other misc. kind
of work if necessary. Even where the institution runs more than
one school, the grant towards the salary expenses of non-teaching
staff is not being paid. There is not a single primary school in the
state of Gujarat where grant for such expenses incurred under the
DIST.PRIMARY EDN. OFFICER v. V. MAND AL
559
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
any 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.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
A
B
c