The Supreme Court has held that teachers in private unaided educational institutions can approach the High Court through a writ petition when their salary rights arise from statutory rules. The Court also upheld the operation of amended pay-scale rules even though they had not been laid before the Maharashtra Legislature.
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from a Bombay High Court judgment directing private unaided educational institutions to implement the salary scales prescribed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
The institutions argued that writ petitions were not maintainable against private unaided schools and that the amended 2016 Rules could not operate because they had not been placed before the State Legislature as required under Section 16(4) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977.
The teachers, however, contended that the statutory framework imposed a duty on private schools to pay salaries according to the prescribed scales.
Supreme Court’s Observation
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi rejected the broader objection against writ jurisdiction.
The Court explained that a private unaided institution ordinarily cannot be subjected to a writ for enforcement of a purely contractual service right. However, the position changes where the right flows from a statute and the institution has a corresponding public duty.
The Bench observed that
“if rights of teaching staff flow from a Statute or Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, a writ petition would be maintainable” against a private unaided educational institution.
The Court noted that the 1981 Rules prescribed salary scales for teachers and that the 1977 Act placed a statutory obligation on institutions to comply with those scales.
On the second issue, the Court held that the 2016 amendments remained operative despite not being laid before the Legislature. It found that Section 16(4) did not require legislative approval before the amended Rules could take effect.
Decision
The Supreme Court found no error in the Bombay High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeals. It also clarified that factual disputes concerning individual teachers’ entitlement could be raised before the appropriate court or forum.
There was no order as to costs.
 Act-300x169.webp)
