A. Chakrabarti, J.
1. The petitioner herein is an assistant teacher having been appointed long back in October, 1978. When a memorandum dated December 21, 2001 (annexure P-3 to the writ petition) was issued prohibiting private tuition by the assistant teachers and making an obligation for each teacher to submit declaration every three months declaring that he/she is not engaged in private tuition of students of any school or any other institution had not engaged in any kind of business or trade and not acting as any agent of any company/corporation, the same has been challenged by the petitioner contending that such action of the respondents calling upon the petitioner to file such a declaration affects the dignity of the petitioner. Therefore, compelling the petitioner to file such declaration and in default withholding grant resulting in non payment of salary to the petitioner affects the petitioner's right to life and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, such provision requiring the petitioner to give such a declaration is without any reason and therefore, arbitrary in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a teacher and is in such a noble profession that she cannot be asked to file such a declaration and that too every three months as it affects the dignity of a teacher.
3. Relying on various provisions of the management rules including Rule 28 and its various Sub-rules, it is contended that statutory provisions are already there prescribing the terms and conditions of service of a teacher including the provisions and procedures for their dismissal and there is no provision for withholding salary of the petitioner directly or indirectly by withholding grant in aid to the extent the same covers the salary and other allowances of the petitioner. Reference was made to relevant circulars prescribing the Government policy including the very first circular issued in the year 1961 and the subsequent circulars issued from time to time by the Government and it is contended that there is no provision for quarterly release of grant in aid and its withholding for non compliance of any requirement including submission of a declaration quarterly. The petitioner has a right to get salary if she discharges her duties, and such right flows from statutory provision contained in sub Rule 7 of Rule 28 of the management rules and therefore, by administrative instruction such salary cannot be withheld by withholding grant in aid.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that right to life provided under Article 21 of the Constitution does not protect only life but it included livelihood and living with dignity. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the cases of Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in : AIR1996SC1051 , Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, reported in : 1981CriLJ306 , Wary am Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1996(4) SLR 177, People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India reported in : AIR1997SC568 , Bandhan Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, reported in : [1984]2SCR67 .
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a teacher is entitled to serve with dignity and nothing can be done which affects her reputation as the same will amount to violation of Article 21. With regard to the word 'reputation', reference was made to the meaning provided for in the dictionary by Aiyar.
6. Learned Advocate General, opposing the writ petition, contended that the impugned memorandum contains policy of the Government which cannot be challenged in the writ Jurisdiction on the ground on which the same has been challenged particularly when the main part of the police, imposing a bar on private tuition is not under challenge as categorically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that filing of the declaration is only a procedural part of the said policy/which cannot be challenged as the same is merely for the purpose of implementation of the main policy. Reference was made to the Article 154 and 102 of the Constitution of India for stating that executive wing of the Government is entitled to pass such direction in respect of the field not occupied by the statutory provision and in the present case regarding the subject matter of the impugned memorandum no statutory provision to the contrary is admittedly existing.
7. Mr. Roy has contended that 1981 circular contained a statutory rule but all subsequent circulars in respect of grant in aid are merely administrative instruction. Admittedly the old Act and the rules were no more operative on introduction of the new Act followed by the new rules and in such circumstances, the statutory rules framed in the year 1961 does not remain applicable and therefore, there being no statutory provision in respect of grant in aid. Government is fully authorised to issue direction from time to time by administrative orders. It is contended that none of the provisions in respect of grant in aid including the impugned memorandum directing filing of the declaration, are well within the powers of the executive wing of the Government. In such circumstances, it is stated by the respondents, the part of the said policy which only implements the main policy providing a procedure cannot be challenged as arbitrary. It has been stated that under the prevailing policy grant in aid is sent to the school every three months and for such payment authority ascertains the amount on factual particulars including the number of teachers entitled to salary from such grant in aid. As the present policy has entitled the Government not to pay grant in aid in respect of the teacher's salary who continues in private tuition and this policy is not under challenge, no fault can be found with the procedure prescribed requiring each teacher to give a declaration that he/she is not engaged in private tuition/in any kind of business or trade, not acting as any agent of any company or corporation. This, it is stated, had to be implemented for ascertaining the amount to be sent for grant in aid to each concerned school.
8. With regard to the dignity of the teacher to be affected by such declaration, it is stated such declaration is to be filed by the teachers only with the institution and that too in respect of some conduct which policy itself provided and has not been challenged herein. The only alternative would have been to enquiry against each teacher periodically for ascertaining whether any one is engaged in private tuition which would have more affecting the dignity of teachers and would have involved cumbersome procedure.
9. Considering the aforesaid contention and the materials available, I find that admittedly the petitioner has taken a stand that the memorandum to the extent it prescribes a bar to private tuition by the teachers, is not under challenge. With regard to the arbitrariness, the contention of the petitioner is that filing of such declaration is for no reason. The contention of the respondent is that such declaration is merely for ascertaining the amount of grant in aid to be paid to any particular school and is merely a procedural one.
10. I find that there is strength in such contention of the respondents as admittedly grant in aid is paid periodically and it cannot be complained against as such payment are to be made periodically which may be monthly or quarterly or half yearly. In such circumstances, payment of grant in aid to the institutions quarterly cannot be held to be unreasonable.
11. I also find that in view of the bar imposed against private tuition by teachers there cannot be any grievance made in not paying the grant in aid by the Government in respect of the salary of a teacher who is engaged in private tuition. For the purpose of ascertaining as to who is engaged in private tuition, school is bound to supply particulars to the Government. But it is apparent that the school has no material to find out conclusively as to which teacher is engaged in private tuition and therefore, a declaration by the concerning teacher to the school authorities that he/she is not engaged in private tuition cannot be held to be unreasonable.
12. With regard to the power of the Government to withhold grant in aid, I find that as admittedly the policy is accepted that the teachers are debarred from getting engaged in private tuition, the Government is entitled to impose a ban for payment of grant in aid in respect of such a teacher who is engaged in private tuition and therefore, ascertaining relevant data for the said purpose cannot be said to be irregular or without reason.
13. The contention of the petitioner that the Government has no power to withhold salary and a teacher is entitled to get salary if he/she discharges his/her duties, is not disputed. But such a right of the concerned teacher is to get salary not from the Government, therefore, the Government's withholding grant in aid in respect of the amount of salary for a teacher engaged in private tuition does not amount to withholding of salary and the teacher cannot claim against the State Government any right for payment of grant in aid for payment of his/her salary.
14. When admittedly, under the new Act no statutory provision is there in respect of grant in aid, the state authorities could issue circulars administratively declaring its policy relating to such grant.
15. With regard to the contention regarding violation of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, I find mere making a declaration does not affect the dignity of a teacher particularly when such declaration is to be made before the school authorities only and it cannot be held that either the Government or the school authorities are to be compelled to indulge in enquiry against each teacher for ascertaining as to whether they are engaged in private tuition as the same involves unnecessary voluminous work imposed upon such authorities and this may affect dignity of teachers in general.
16. I do not find that merely by filing a declaration the dignity of a teacher is affected though I accept that the teachers are highly respectable tn the society. But it goes without saying that a teacher is also required to give very many declarations before various authorities because of statutory responsibility. Even a teacher may be required to issue a receipt declaring that he/she has resolved salary for a particular month. Teachers may be required to file return of income before concerned authority. In connection with the same, teachers may be required produce proof of his/her Income and expenditure. Teachers may be required to put signature in attendance register to show that they attended their place of work on a given day. Teachers may be asked to file medical certificate in support of their application for medical leave to show that they are suffering from ailments.
17. I do not think that affect the dignity of a teacher in any such case in the present society following certain accepted system and norms.
18. In view of my aforesaid findings on facts that filing of such declaration by teachers is neither arbitrary violating Article 14 not affects dignity in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the judgments cited by the petitioner does not help her as the relevant observations were in particular factual background and not applicable in the present facts. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Clauses 16 and 17 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 also is not applicable as the impugned requirement of filing declaration have been held to be not affecting honour or reputation of teachers.
In view of my above findings no interference can be made on the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier is hereby vacated.