Supreme Court: Writ Lies Against Private Unaided Schools to Enforce Statutory Teacher Pay

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi held mandamus lies against private unaided schools to pay statutory teacher salaries, and unlaid rules stay operative.

The Supreme Court has held that a writ of mandamus can be issued against a private unaided educational institution to enforce a statutory duty to pay teachers salary at prescribed rates. A division bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed appeals by private unaided institutions in Maharashtra that had challenged a Bombay High Court order directing them to fix and pay teacher pay scales under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) rules.

The Court decided two questions: whether such a writ petition is maintainable against a private unaided school, and whether amended pay-scale rules operate even if not laid before the State Legislature. It answered both in favour of the teachers, concurring with the High Court and holding the amended 1981 Rules applicable.

How the dispute reached the Court

The appeals arose from a common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dated 20 March 2017, which disposed of eight writ petitions. The High Court directed the institutions to fix pay scales under Schedule ‘C’ of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981, pay salary regularly from April 2017, and clear arrears within six months.

It also quashed a letter dated 31 December 2015 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Latur, and a letter dated 11 March 2016 issued by the Accounts Officer, Audit Squad (Education Department), Nanded, and restrained recovery of excess payments made on account of wrong pay fixation.

The appellants were private unaided institutions. The writ petitioners were teachers in those institutions. The teachers' case was that their pay was initially fixed under the Rules, but after the Rules were amended and higher scales applied, the institutions failed to comply, forcing them to approach the High Court.

Maintainability against a private unaided school

The Court began with the general position that a writ petition against a private unaided school is ordinarily not maintainable where it seeks enforcement of a contractual right with no public element. It gave two reasons: such an institution is not a State under Article 12, and a service contract cannot be specifically enforced under common law.

The exception, the Court held, is where the rights sought flow from a statute that casts a duty on the institution, and performance of that duty carries a public element. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs to any person or authority, so the remedy is not confined to Article 12 bodies. Imparting education by a recognised institution is akin to a public duty, and teaching activity has a direct nexus to it.

“The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant,” the Court said, adding that what matters is the nature of the duty imposed on the body.

The Court relied on St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, which drew a distinction between teaching and non-teaching staff. For non-teaching staff, employment terms are not an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education, though breach of a statutory provision regulating removal may be interfered with on the ground of breach of law. The Court also drew on K. Krishnamacharyulu and Satimbla Sharma, where it had been held that a statutory duty to pay teachers a fixed salary can be enforced by mandamus.

Applying this, the Court found that the 1981 Rules, as amended in 1986, framed under Section 16 read with Section 4(1) of the 1977 Act, provide the pay scales for teachers in private unaided schools. Under Section 4(3), if pay is less favourable than the Rules, the Director must direct the management to bring it to the prescribed level; under Section 4(4), failure can lead to withdrawal of recognition. A statutory duty therefore exists, and the writ petitions were maintainable.

Operability of unlaid rules

On the second issue, the institutions argued that the amended Rules were not laid before the State Legislature as required by Section 16(4) of the 1977 Act, and were therefore inoperable. They relied on Association of Management of Private Colleges v. AICTE for the principle that where a statute prescribes a procedure, the act must be done that way or not at all.

The Court referred to the three categories of laying set out in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana — simple laying, laying subject to negative resolution, and laying subject to affirmative resolution. It examined the Constitution Bench ruling in Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Bagban v. State of Gujarat and the Constitution Bench decision in K.T. Plantation Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, which considered a similarly worded laying provision.

In K.T. Plantation, the Court had held that non-laying of a notification is a curable defect that does not affect its validity or action taken under it, where the provision does not require legislative approval to bring the rule into effect. The Court found Section 16(4) of the 1977 Act similarly worded and not requiring legislative approval for the Rule to take effect.

Where a rule is not laid, the Court held, it operates from the date of notification until modified or annulled. If laid and modified, it operates in modified form; if annulled, it ceases. Since the amended Rules here were neither modified nor annulled, they applied.

The Court held that Association of Management of Private Colleges, a coordinate bench decision, failed to consider the binding larger-bench rulings in Atlas Cycle, Jan Mohammad Noor and K.T. Plantation, and to that extent could not be treated as binding precedent.

Scope of entitlement on facts

The appellants sought liberty to contest individual teachers' entitlement on facts, noting the High Court had not examined each case. The Court referred to the High Court's review order dated 19 June 2017, where it clarified that the judgment does not cover teachers not in service due to termination or otherwise. As and when a factual issue arises, parties may raise appropriate pleas before the appropriate forum.

Order

Finding no error in the High Court's view, the Court dismissed the appeals. Pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered on 5 August 2026 by Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi.