- (1.) The scales of pay and other conditions of service of teachers and other employees of the Frank Anthony Public School, New Delhi compare very unfavourably with those of their counterparts of the Delhi Administration Schools. The scales of pay of teachers, primary, T.G.T. or middle, and senior or P.G.T. of Government schools (that is, schools run by the Delhi Administration), as of today, are 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2000, 1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600 and 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 respectively. Primary and middle school teachers are entitled to House Rent Allowance of Rs. 250/-, City Compensatory Allowance of Rs. 75/- and Medical Allowance of Rs. 25/- while, Senior school teachers are entitled to House Rent Allowance of Rs. 450/-, City Compensatory Allowance of Rs. 100/- and Medical Allowance of Rs. 25/-. At the starting point a primary school teacher gets a total sum of Rs. 1540/- per month by way of salary and allowances, a middle school teacher gets a total sum of Rs. 1750/- and a senior school teacher a total sum of Rs. 2215/-. The scales of pay of primary, middle and senior school teachers of the Frank Anthony Public School are 275-20-475-25-600-25-725, 300-25-550-30-770-30-850 and 400-30-700-35-875-35-1050. they get allowances of Rs. 702-50, 715/- and 765/- respectively. At the starting point the salary and allowances together come to Rs. 977.50/-, 1015/- and 1165/- respectively. In the case of teachers of Government schools they are entitled to gratuity of 15 days' pay for every year of service, Provident Fund at the rate of 8.33% and leave Travel Concession once every two years to their home town. In the case of teachers of the Frank Anthony Public School there is provision for Contributory Provident fund and Family Pension only. Teachers of Government schools are entitled to Casual Leave of 12 days, Earned Leave of 10 days, Sick Leave of 10 days and Maternity Leave of 90 days, whereas, teachers of the Frank Anthony Public School are entitled to Casual Leave of 10 days, no Earned Leave, Sick Leave of 14 days and Maternity Leave of 30 days. In the case of Class IV employees, in Government schools, the scale of pay is 750-8-790-EB-10-940 with House Rent Allowance of Rs. 150/-, City Compensatory Allowance of Rs. 30/- and Medical Allowance of Rs. 25/-. The scale of pay of Class IV employees of the Frank Anthony Public School is 70-5-120-7.50-195 with allowances of Rs. 473/-. The total starting salary and allowances of Class IV employees in Government Schools and the Frank Anthony Public School are Rs. 955/- and Rs. 543/- respectively. It is evident that in the matter of emoluments and conditions of service such as leave etc. teachers and employees of the Frank Anthony Public School lag far behind the teachers and employees of Government schools. There are other conditions of service of teachers and employees of the Frank Anthony Public School which also compare unfavourably with the conditions of service of teachers and employees of Government schools. The Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association seeks equalisation of their pay scales and conditions of service with those of teachers and employees of Government schools. Sections 8 to 12 of the Delhi School Education Act together comprise Chapter IV of that Act which deals with "Terms and conditions of service of employees of recognised private schools". If Sections 8 to 11 were applicable to the teachers and other employees of the Frank Anthony Public School, they would at least be as well off as teachers and other employees of Government schools. But Section 12 provides, "Nothing contained in this Chapter shall apply to an unaided minority school." The Frank Anthony Public School is an unaided minority school. By the force of Section 12 of the Act, the provisions of Sections 8 to 11 do not apply to the Frank Anthony Public School. Therefore, the Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association has sought from this Court a declaration that Section 12 of the Delhi School Education Act is unconstitutional as being violative of Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. A similar declaration is sought in regard to Section 21 of the Act also but is not pressed before us. A direction is also sought to the respondents, the Union of India and the Delhi Administration to enforce all the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, other than Sections 12 and 21, and to fix the pay, allowances, benefits etc. to persons employed in the schools governed by the Act in relation to unaided minority schools at par with the persons employed in other schools."
(2.) It appears that sometime after the filing of the writ petition and before the preliminary hearing of the writ petition some developments took place to which it is necessary to refer here. On May 9, 1986 at 10.30 a.m. the teaching staff other than those on duty took out 'a silent march' which was joined by the Class IV staff also. The school hours have a break between 10.00 a.m. and 10.40 a.m. During the break only one or two teachers are on duty. Except those on duty, all the others took part in the 'silent march'. Classes were resumed at 10.40 a.m. and were not affected in any manner. There were no speeches, no shouting of slogans, no violence and no disruption of studies. But even so a notice was issued by the Principal on April 10, 1986 warning the members of the staff. Despite the warning a similar silent march was taken out on April 10, 1986 also. The management issued orders of suspension against Mrs. Malik, Mrs. Dhar, Mrs. Balman and Mr. Bush. While granting 'Rule Nisi' in the main writ petition, this Court also grant stay of operation of the orders of suspension of the four teachers. The inquiries against them were also stayed.
(3.) The attack of the petitioner against Section 12 of the Delhi Education Act was based on Art. 14 while the provisions were sought to be sustained by the respondents on the basis of Article 30 of the Constitution. While it was argued by Mr. Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 12 was hit by Art. 14 and that Sections 8 to 11 did not, in any manner, impinge upon Article 30 of the Constitution, it was argued, on behalf of the respondents, by the learned Additional, Solicitor-General and by Shri Frank Anthony, that the classification made by Section 12 was perfectly valid and that, but for Section 12, Sections 8 to 11 would have to be held to interfere with the right guaranteed by Art. 30 to religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice and Sections 8 to 11 would consequently be inapplicable to such minority educational institutions.;