Private unaided minority school teachers cannot claim enforceable pay parity, though the State may regulate salaries under the education law.

Teachers of a private unaided minority school cannot enforce parity of salary and allowances with teachers of Government or Government-aided schools through Article 14, Article 39(d), or a writ of mandamus, because the school pays from its own resources and retains constitutional autonomy under Article 30(1); in the absence of a statutory or executive mandate, pay structure remains contractual and outside an enforceable public law duty. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 nevertheless empowers the State to prescribe teachers' salary and service conditions through rules under Sections 23(3) and 38(2)(l), and such rule-making should take equal pay principles into account.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether teachers of a private unaided minority school can claim parity of salary and allowances with teachers of Government schools and Government-aided schools and obtain a writ of mandamus for such parity; (ii) whether the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 enables the State to prescribe salary and service conditions for teachers with reference to equal pay principles.

Issue (i): whether teachers of a private unaided minority school can claim parity of salary and allowances with teachers of Government schools and Government-aided schools and obtain a writ of mandamus for such parity.

Analysis: The liability to pay Government-scale emoluments rests on the State and Government-aided institutions drawing public funds, whereas a private unaided minority school pays its teachers from its own resources and functions with constitutional autonomy under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The guarantee under Article 14 is enforceable against the State, not against an unaided private minority school. Likewise, the obligation in Article 39(d) is directed to the State. In the absence of a statutory provision or executive instruction imposing such parity, the salary structure of teachers in a private unaided school remains a matter of contract and falls outside enforceable public law duty.

Conclusion: The claimed parity and the requested mandamus were not maintainable against the private unaided minority school.

Issue (ii): whether the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 enables the State to prescribe salary and service conditions for teachers with reference to equal pay principles.

Analysis: Section 23(3) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 provides that salary and allowances, and the terms and conditions of service of teachers, are to be as prescribed, and Section 38(2)(l) authorises the appropriate Government to make rules on those matters. The State Government is therefore empowered to frame rules on teachers' emoluments and service conditions, and the Court indicated that such rule-making should take Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India into account.

Conclusion: The State was held competent to make rules under the 2009 Act on teachers' salary and service conditions, and was advised to consider equal pay principles while doing so.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the central claim for enforced pay parity against the unaided minority school, while leaving it open to the State to regulate teachers' salary and service conditions through appropriate rule-making under the 2009 Act.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory or executive mandate, teachers of a private unaided minority school cannot enforce parity of pay with Government-school teachers through Article 14, Article 39(d), or a writ of mandamus against the school.

---