This appeal has been made against judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court where he held that the appellant is not entitled to any relief under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) or the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 09.12.1977 having pay scale of 330-10-350. After this, she was promoted to TGT having pay scale of 4Rs, 440-2-500. Thereafter, on 01.01.1990, she was granted senior pay scale, which was later revised with effect from 01.01.1996.
The counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant joined service on 09.12.1977 and she was promoted on 31.03.1978. She thereafter superannuated on 31.03.2013. Thus, this shows that she was serving the same post for about 35 years straight. The counsel further submitted that the appellant was denied her second financial upgradation on 01.09.2002, and third financial upgradation under the ACPS which had pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 per month and Rs. 9,300-34,500 per month respectively computed from 01.08.1978 when she received her first promotion. The counsel also submitted that the appellant was entitled to get the difference in the pay scale under the ACP Scheme and MACP Scheme. The counsel contended that the circulars issued by the Directorate of Education which asked all the schools to implement the sixth Pay Commission recommendations, were binding on the respondent under section 10 of Delhi Education Act, 1973. Also, the respondents had implemented the recommendations to every teacher excluding only the appellant.
On the other hand, the counsel for respondents submitted that the petitioner’s counsel could not argue on the section 10 of Delhi education Act, 1973 as the respondents had not mandated the implementation of MACPS for private unaided schools.
The court, however, dismissing the appeal said that it is an established law that maximum autonomy should be in the administration of private unaided institutions as presence of Government interference in the Administration of such institutions will undermine their independence. Hence it was held that the appellant was not entitled to any relief under the ACP or MACP Scheme, thus upholding the order passed by the Single Judge.