Skip to content


Bharatiya Samskrithi Vidya Peeta Vs. the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Education Department and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 6435 of 2000
Judge
Reported inILR2005KAR1234; 2005(2)KarLJ147
ActsKarnataka Education Act, 1983 - Sections 133 and 146(3); Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 - Rule 5; Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975
AppellantBharatiya Samskrithi Vidya Peeta
RespondentThe Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Education Department and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK. Subba Rao, Sr. Counsel for ;H.R.S. Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV.Y. Kumar, Government Adv. for Respondent-1
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....acquisition. court cannot issue direction (writ of mandamus) to the authorities to issue final notification after the lapse of statutory time limit. - this is precisely what the state government directed which direction was upheld by the learned single judge......the management did not pay the salary to the 5th respondent at par with the salary of a government school teacher. she then approached the state government by filing a petition under section 133 of the karnataka education act, 1983. that petition was allowed by an order dated 8th february, 2000 and a direction was issued to the government to pay salary to the 5th respondent at par with the salary of government school teachers. feeling aggrieved by this order the management filed writ petition no. 25112 of 2000 in this court. that writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge on 31st july, 2000 with a direction to the management to pay the salary to the 5th respondent equivalent to that of a teacher in a government school. it is against this order that the present.....
Judgment:

N.K. Sodhi, C.J.

1. 5th respondent is an employee of the Bharatiya Samskrithi Vidya Peeta which is running a primary school in which this respondent is working as teacher. The school was receiving Grant-in-Aid from the State Government which was subsequently withdrawn because the management had allegedly violated some of the conditions on which the grant had been sanctioned. After the withdrawal of the Grant-in-Aid the management did not pay the salary to the 5th respondent at par with the salary of a Government school teacher. She then approached the State Government by filing a petition under Section 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. That petition was allowed by an order dated 8th February, 2000 and a direction was issued to the Government to pay salary to the 5th respondent at par with the salary of Government school teachers. Feeling aggrieved by this order the management filed Writ Petition No. 25112 of 2000 in this Court. That writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 31st July, 2000 with a direction to the management to pay the salary to the 5th respondent equivalent to that of a teacher in a Government school. It is against this order that the present writ appeal has been filed.

2. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and are of the view that there is no merit in the writ appeal. Admittedly, the appellant before us is running a private primary school which is a recognised institution which was initially receiving Grant-in-Aid. As already observed, the Grant-in-Aid was withdrawn because the management had allegedly violated some of the conditions on which it had been sanctioned. Be that as it may, the management is running a private primary school which is recognised and is therefore governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978. Rule 5 of these Rules reads as under:

'5. Scale of pay.-The scale of pay of an employee of an institution shall not be lower than the scale of pay of an employee of a corresponding post in the Government Educational Institutions'.

3. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision leaves no room for doubt that an employee of a private institution has to be paid the scale of pay which is not lower than the scale of an employee of a corresponding post in the Government Educational Institution. It is thus clear that a teacher in a private institution has to be given the scale of pay which is given to a teacher in a Government school. This is precisely what the State Government directed which direction was upheld by the learned Single Judge. No fault can thus be found with the order under appeal.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant however contended that the Rules of 1978 stand repealed with the repeal of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975. We do not find any merit in this contention. It is true that the 1978 Rules were framed under the aforesaid Act of 1975 and this Act has been repealed by the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. But the rules framed under the earlier Act have been saved by virtue of the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of the Section 146 of the 1983 Act which reads as under:

'146. Repeal and savings.-(1) xx xx xx

(2) xx xx xx.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all rules, orders, notifications, Grant-in-Aid Codes, appointments, schemes, bye-laws, regulations, official memoranda, circulars or any other orders made or issued before the commencement of this Act and in force on the date of such commencement providing for or relating to any of the matters for the furtherance of which this Act is enacted shall continue to be in force and effective as if they are made under the corresponding provisions of this Act unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken or any notification, Grant-in-Aid Code, rule, order, appointment, scheme, bye-law, regulation, official memorandum, circular or any other order made or issued under this Act'.

5. This Rule came up for consideration before this Court in S.S. Anand and Ors. v. The Management of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta (Regd.), Bangalore and Anr. 1998 (3 Kar. L.J. 293), and it was held that even though the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 had been repealed by the 1983 Act, the Rules of 1978 framed thereunder still hold the field in view of the provisions of Section 146(3) of the 1983 Act.

6. No other point has been raised.

7. In the result the writ appeal fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //