SABITA SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN lack of budgetary - provisions stand on the way of disbursing arrear salaries of teachers, whose services have been approved and who are/were receiving salary, is the ratio of this case.

(2.) A true democracy is one where education is universal, where people understand what is good to them and the nation, and know how to govern them -selves. The three articles i. e. Articles 45, 46 arid 41 of the Constitution of India are designed to achieve the said goal among others. It is in the light of these Articles that the content and parameters of the right to education have to be determined. Right to education, understood in the context of Articles 45 and 41 means, (a) every child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of fourteen years, and (b) after a child/citizen completes fourteen years, his tight to education is circumscribed by the limits of the economic capacity of the State and its development. The right to education further means that, a citizen has a right to call upon the State to provide educational facilities to him within the limit of its economic capacity and. development. The apprehension that reading of the right to education into Article 21, would enable each and every citizen of this country toapproach the courts to compel the State to provide him such education as he chooses is therefore unfounded. This is how the Apex Court has observed in the case of Unni Krishnan, J. P. and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A. I. R. 1993 S. C. 2178. Imparting primary and secondary education to the students is the bounden duty of the State Administration. It is a constitutional mandate that the State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of the society depends. In the. line with this principle, the State has enacted statutes and framed rules and regulations to control/regulate establishment and running of private schools at different levels. The State Government provides grant -in -aid to private schools with a view to ensure smooth running of the institution and to ensure that the standard of teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of funds (see vide (2000) 2 S.C.C. 42, Chandigarh Administration and others v. Rajni Vali (Mrs.) and others ).

(3.) I am at a loss to understand as to how poor teachers can impart education in these hard days, without any discontentment in their hearts, when their legitimate arrear salaries are not paid to them. With the rise of price index, stringent financial difficulties are faced by these teachers who have chosen the noble profession of teaching. Thus, paucity of funds and financial burden cannot be accepted as a valid ground for denying payment of arrear salaries to the poor teachers, if they are legitimately entitled to receive the same.