Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 05-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Siyarim Education Society; Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research (and another). Respondents – Chhaya D/o Baliram Dhave & Ors.; Mahendra & Others; Anil & Others (teachers).
  • Procedural History: Appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 10063/2026, 10064‑10065/2026, 10066‑10067/2026) arise from a common High Court judgment dated 20‑03‑2017 (Aurangabad Bench) disposing of eight writ petitions. The High Court ordered that private unaided schools fix teachers’ pay as per Schedule ‘C’ of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (including 2016 amendment), pay salaries from April 2017, grant arrears, and restrain recovery of excess payments.
  • Issues Presented:

1. Whether writ petitions seeking direction to private unaided schools to pay teachers at rates prescribed by the Rules are maintainable.

2. Whether the 2016 amendment to the 1981 Rules is operative despite not being laid before the State Legislature as required by sub‑section 4 of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977.

  • Submissions: Appellants argued that private unaided schools are not State entities, thus writs are not maintainable and the Rules are inoperative without legislative laying. Respondents contended that education is a public duty, the statutory duty to pay prescribed salaries is enforceable, and that non‑laying is a directory defect not affecting validity, relying on Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd., K.T. Plantation, and related precedents.

Analysis

  • Issue 1 (Maintainability): The Court held that when a statutory provision imposes a duty on a private unaided school to pay teachers at a prescribed rate, the duty has a public element. Under Article 226, writs can be issued against any person performing a public duty. Hence, the writ petitions are maintainable.
  • Issue 2 (Operability of Rules): Citing Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd., Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Bagban, and K.T. Plantation, the Court observed that the laying requirement in sub‑section 4 of Section 16 is directory, not a condition precedent. Therefore, the amended 1981 Rules became operative from the date of notification despite the failure to lay them before the legislature.
  • The Court concluded that there is no error in the High Court’s view on either issue.

Final Outcome

  • The appeals are dismissed. The High Court order fixing teachers’ pay as per the 1981 Rules (including the 2016 amendment) stands.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Any pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Topics: Teacher Pay; Education Regulation