Equal pay for equal work, principle as envisaged in section 10 of  the Delhi School Education Act made inapplicable to an unaided minority school by section 12, thereof-Whether section 12 is hit by Articles I4, 2I and 23 of the Constitution-Whether sections 8 to 11  impinge on the right of the minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice envisaged in Article 30 of the Constitution. 

Chapter IV of the Delhi School Education Act, comprising of sections 8 to 12 deal with "Terms and conditions of service of employees  of recognised private schools". Chapter V consisting of sections 13 to 15 contains "the provisions applicable to unaided minority schools". Section 10(1) specifically requires that, "the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in  schools run by the appropriale authority". But section 12 provides, "Nothing contained in this Chapter shall apply to an unaided minority school." Chapter V contains certain provisions relating to unaided minority schools. 

The effect of section 12 of the Act is to make sections 8, 9, 10 and 11  inapplicable to unaided minority schools: First, the Administrator may not make rules regulating the conditions of service of employees of unaided minority schools. But so far as the minimum qualifications for recruitment of employees are concerned, Section 13 enables the Administrator to make regulations even in respect of unaided minority schools. Second, the prior approval of the Director need not be obtained for the dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination of service otherwise than by dismissal or removal of an employee of an unaided minority school. Third, against such dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, there is to be no appeal. Fourth, neither prior nor subsequent approval of the Director need be obtained to suspend any of the employees of an unaided minority school. Fifth, the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other benefits which may be given to employees are subject to no regulation  except that they should be contained in a written contract of service and need not conform to the scales of pay and allowances etc. of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority as in the case of other recognised private schools.

Frank Anthony Public School is a recognised unaided minority school within the meaning of sections 2(x) read with 2(e), 2(o) and 2(1) of the Act. In the matter of emoluments and conditions of service such as leave etc., teachers and employees of the Frank Anthony Public School lag far behind the teachers and employees of Government schools. Several other conditions of service of teachers and employees also compare unfavourably with the conditions of service of teachers and employees of Government Schools. But for section 12 and if sections 8 to 11 were applicable to them, they would at least be as well off as teachers and other employees of Government Schools. The Petitioner association, therefore, has filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking equalisation of their pay scales and conditions of service with those of their counterparts in Government Schools and for D a declaration that section 12 of the Act is void and constitutionally invalid as offending Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. 

Sometime after the filing of the writ petition and before the preliminary hearing of the writ petitions, some developments took place. On May 9, 1986 at 10.30 A.M. during the daily school break between 10 A.M. and 10.40 A.M. the teaching staff other than one or two teachers who are required to be on duty, took out a  silent march" which was joined by the Class IV Staff also. Except those on duty, all the others took part in the "silent march". Classes were resumed at 10.40 A.M. and were not affected in any manner. There were no speeches, no , shouting of slogans, no violence and no disruption of studies., But even ) so a notice was Sued by the principal on April 10, 1986 warning the members of the staff. Despite the warning a similar silent march was  taken out on April 10, 1986 also. The management issued orders of suspension against Mrs. Malik, Mrs. Dhar, Mrs. Balman and Mr. Bush. The Petitioner Association challenged the said suspension orders as well and sought stay of the operation of the orders of suspension of the four teachers.

The respondents in response to the "Rule Nisi" contended; (i) that the classification made by section 12 was perfectly valid; (ii) that but for section 12, sections 8 to 11 would have to be held to interfere with the right guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution to religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice; (iii) the petitioner school was an educational institution of great repute whose excellence spoke for itself and therefore it did not necessitate any regulation by any other authority; (iv) that the scale of fee should continue to be low so that it may be within the reach of the ordinary people whom it was intended to reach. It was because of this desire of the management to keep the scale of fee low that the management could not pay higher salaries and allowances; and (v) that if section 12 was struck down and the management was compelled to pay the same scale of salary and allowances as was paid to employees of Government schools, the Frank Anthony Public School would have to be closed down.