Maximum Autonomy Should Be Given To Private Unaided Schools For Their Own Administration: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

In the present appeal, the appellant had challenged the order of the Single Bench of the High Court which had held that the appellant was not eligible to claim benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) or the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP).

Therefore, the appellant had asked for the implementation of the ACP Scheme after completion of 24 years of service and consequently also sought the arrears of differential salary.

It was also argued by the Appellant that for a period of 35 years, she was never promoted. She languished and stagnated at the same post for 35 years.

The Respondent argued that the appellant belongs to a private unaided school, which generates its own funds, and had received 3 financial upgradations upon being promoted.

It was also contended that in the absence of any instructions regarding granting benefit of MACP Scheme to the employees working in the private unaided schools, the question of allowing the benefit to the staff working in the un-aided private school is a matter of discretion of the school management keeping in mind the funds that are available.

The Respondent also argued that no specific instruction was issued to private unaided schools to implement the MACP Scheme and no guidelines have been made to raise funds for the financial burden arising out of the same. Therefore, reliance on section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 cannot be placed.

The court agreed with the submissions made by the Respondent and noted that section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act cannot be invoked by the Appellants as the Respondent nowhere mandated the implementation of MACP Scheme for private unaided schools.

The Division Bench of Justice Sistani and Justice Jyoti Singh relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the TMA Pai Foundation case wherein it was held that:

"…There, necessarily, has to be a difference in the administration of private unaided institutions and government-aided institutions. Whereas in the latter case, the Government will have greater say in the administration, including admissions and fixing of fees, in the case of private unaided institutions, maximum autonomy in the day-to-day administration has to be with the private unaided institutions…"

Therefore, the court refused to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge and noted that appellant is not entitled to any relief under ACP Scheme or MACP Scheme.

Click Here To Download The Judgment

[Read Judgment]