- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) SUBSTANTIALLY the claim of the petitioners is for grant of salary by the State respondent. The petitioners claim themselves to be the Assistant Teachers in the Primary School of Chaudhary Baldev Singh Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Bamnauli, District Bijnore, a duly recognized and aided High School. Their claim was rejected by the impugned order forcing them to file the present petition. The Constitution Bench in Unni Krishnan, J. P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. , (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 645, (hereinafter referred to as Unni Krishnan's case) while dealing with primary and basic education, in paragraph No. 171 of the report held: ". . . . . The right to education which is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 must be construed in the light of directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution. So far as the right to education is concerned, there are several Articles in Part IV which expressly speak of it. Article 41 says that the "state shall, within the limit of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. " Article 45 says that. . . . . "the State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years. " Article 46 commands that. . . . "the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interest of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. " Education means knowledge and "knowledge itself is power. " As rightly observed by John Adams, "the preservation means of knowledge among the lowest ranks is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country". It is this concern which seems to underlie Article 46. It is the tyrants and bad rulers who are afraid of spread of education and knowledge among the deprived classes. Witness Hitler railing against universal education. He said: "universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction. " A true democracy is one where education is universal, where people understand what is good for them and the nation and know how to govern themselves. The three Articles 45, 46 and 41 are designed to achieve the said goal among others. It is in the light of these Articles that the content and parameters of the right to education have to be determined. Right to education, understood in the context of Articles 45 and 41, means (a) every child citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of fourteen years. . . . . " After considering several authoritative reports, it went on to hold in paragraph No. 175 to the following effect: "be that as it may, we hold that child (citizen) has a fundamental right to free education upto the age of 14 years. " But it hastened to clarify in the next paragraph that: ". . . . . . . This does not also means that unaided private schools cannot continue. They can, indeed, they too have a role to play. They meet the demand of that segment of population who may not wish to have their children educated in State run schools. . . . . . "
(3.) ANOTHER three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Pradesh State Recognized and Aided Schools [ (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 507] while considering the ratio laid down in Unni Krishnan's case, held that the State is obliged to provide free education till 14 years and aid should be provided by the State irrespective of its financial capacity for payment of salary to those teachers. Our Court in the case of Ramji Tewari & Ors. v. District Inspector of Schools, [1997 (1) U. P. L. B. E. C. 690], was confronted with the issue as to whether teachers of primary school are entitled for salary by the State through grant-in-aid akin to those of Government Primary Schools. After considering large number of decisions, including the aforesaid two decisions held that by denying proper salaries to such teachers the State is indirectly denying children of the right declared in Unni Krishnan's case to get free education upto 14 years and issued directions in paragraph No. 75 for payment of salaries to teachers of primary schools whether aided or unaided as it found that without proper salaries, quality education cannot be imparted.;