Judicial Functions Can’t Be Relegated To Committees: Delhi High Court Remands Matter Involving Eligibility Of School Teachers For Salary As Per 6th & 7th CPC
The Delhi High Court clarified that Committees can only be constituted by the Courts to give a report on the facts to assist the Court in adjudicating rival claims.
Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has remanded the case involving eligibility of teachers of unaided private schools of Delhi claiming for payment of salary as per the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) which is being paid to schools run by the appropriate authorities.
The Court was deciding a batch of Appeals preferred by the teachers of various unaided private schools against the Judgment of the Single Judge.
A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held, “In the opinion of this Court, the portion of the impugned Judgment wherein the learned Single Judge has constituted Committees at the Zonal and Central level to deal with the issues of fee hike, payment of salaries to the teachers as per the recommendations of the 6th and 7th CPC, and to consider as to whether the teachers would be entitled to the claims as sought for in the Writ Petitions, actually tantamounts to relegating the judicial functions to the said Committees, which is not permissible in law. Undoubtedly, the Courts, in exercise of their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can constitute committees but these committees are only fact finding in nature. Judicial functions cannot be relegated to these Committees.”
The Bench clarified that Committees can only be constituted by the Courts to give a report on the facts to assist the Court in adjudicating rival claims.
ASC Yeeshu Jain represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Romy Chacko represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Single Judge by the impugned Judgment had held that the paucity of funds cannot be a ground for non-implementation of 6th and 7th CPC and also rejected the argument of delay and latches. The contention of the schools that the claim of the teachers should be limited only to a period of three years was also rejected by the Single Judge. It was also held that Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSE Act) is mandatory in nature and the teacher of private schools are entitled to the same benefits which are being given to their counter parts in schools run by various authorities. Vide the impugned Judgment, the Single Judge constituted a Committee. Purportedly, the purpose of the Committee was only to inspect the claims of the Petitioners and decide the same keeping in mind the various factors.
The teachers challenged the portion of the Order by which their claims were relegated to be decided by the Committees. It was contended that once the Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the teachers are entitled to the benefits of 6th and 7th CPC and also that the claims of the teachers cannot be restricted to only three years and that Section 10 of the DSE Act is mandatory in nature, the Judge ought to have allowed the Writ Petitions and not relegated the judicial function by constituting Committees at Zonal and Central level. The schools also challenged the Order on the ground that the rights of private unaided schools to fix their fee depending on their expenses has been recognized by the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002).
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “What the learned Single Judge has done is that he has conferred upon the Committees the judicial power to decide the entitlement/claim of teachers by considering their claims and the objections raised by the Schools. Furthermore, there is no representative of the teachers in the Committee. At best, the learned Single Judge could have formed these Committees to furnish a report to the Court and then the Court ought to have adjudicated upon the issues raised by the teachers and the schools without giving the Committees the power to decide the issues.”
The Court noted that the Apex Court was clear that the committees which are set-up by the Court are different from the committees set up by the Government conferring certain adjudicatory rights.
“The Courts cannot relegate judicial functions to the Committees asking them to adjudicate upon a lis which is the function of Courts/Tribunals. The judicial functions are to be discharged by the Judges and cannot be delegated to any Committee formed by Courts”, it emphasised.
The Court said that it is not in a position to sustain that portion of the Order of the Single Judge wherein he has formed the Committees at the zonal and the central level to decide the issues of the teachers and the school.
“There is also force in the contention raised by the schools that several contentions of the schools like eligibility of teachers for claiming benefit as per the recommendations of 6th and 7th CPC, their mode of appointment, the issue regarding rights of the schools to hike fee, etc., have gone un-noticed. In the opinion of this Court, these issues were raised before the learned Single Judge but the same have not been referred to in the impugned Judgment”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Appeals, set aside the impugned Judgment, and remanded the case back to the Roster Bench for fresh consideration.
Cause Title- Renu Arora and Others v. St. Margaret Senior Secondary School (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9380-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: ASC Yeeshu Jain, Advocates Ashok Agarwal, Anuj Agarwal, Kumar Utkarsh, and Manoj Kumar, Nikhilesh Kumar, Pratyaksh Kumar, Anuj Aggarwal, Pradeep Kumar, Kritika Matta, Manas Verma, Kamal Mehta, Jyoti Tyagi, Arpita Goyal, Vishruti Pandey, Bhuwan Raj Seth, Kamal Gupta, Tripti Gupta, Sparsh Aggarwal, Madhulika Singh, and Sabrina Singh.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Romy Chacko, Advocates Sachin Singh Dalal, Ashwin Romy, Ankur Mittal, Jutirani Talukdar, Rajesh Gupta, Harpreet Singh, Kamal Gupta, Tripti Gupta, Sparsh Aggarwal, Madhulika Singh, and Sabrina Singh.
