Education tribunal

From Justice Definitions Project

What is Education Tribunal?

Education tribunals are to be set up at state and national level to adjudicate disputes involving teachers and other employees of higher educational institutions and other stakeholders such as students, universities and statutory regulatory authorities. While state tribunals ought to deal with matters concerning teachers, employees and students of institutions in the respective states, the national tribunal is to deal with matters concerning regulatory bodies in higher education. T M A Pai v. State of Karnataka[1] highlighted the need for education tribunals to be set up in every district of a state, recognizing that disputes between the management and the staff of educational institutions need to be decided speedily, and without the excessive incurring of costs. Setting up of tribunals would ensure that the aggrieved do not suffer due to bearing of costs to access the forum. Education tribunals serve as a faster, more accessible, and less costly way to resolve disputes within the education sector, particularly between institutions, teachers, and students.

Official definition of Education Tribunal

Although the Educational Tribunals Bill, 2010[2] was deferred in the Rajya Sabha, it provided an insight into the functions of the education tribunals. Section 2(1)(s) of the Educational Tribunals Bill, 2010 defines “National Educational Tribunal” as one established under Section 20. The national tribunal was meant to adjudicate cases of dispute between higher educational institutions and statutory authorities; higher educational institutions and affiliating universities (in case of central universities), and any reference made to it by an appropriate statutory authority. It was given appellate jurisdiction over orders of the state tribunals.

Section 2(1)(z) defines “State Educational Tribunals” as those established under Section 4. They are empowered to adjudicate cases related to service matters of teachers and other employees of higher educational institutions; dispute over affiliation of a higher educational institution with an affiliating university and unfair practices of a higher educational institution prohibited by any law.

State educational tribunals have been established in the following states:

Types of Educational Tribunals

At the central level, a National Education Tribunal is proposed to be set up. There are state level educational tribunals in various states such as Punjab, Jharkhand, and so on. Due to the 2010 Bill being deferred, educational matters are often heard by a combination of courts and specialized tribunals such as the Central Administrative Tribunal. State level tribunals are termed in following manner:

  • Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal and Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Tribunal
  • Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal
  • Orissa Education Tribunal
  • Punjab School Education Tribunal
  • Jharkhand Education Tribunal

The composition of state level tribunals

Gujarat

The Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Tribunal is chaired by a District Judge or a person who has been or is qualified to be a judge of a High Court or a District Judge, who will be appointed by the State Government. (Section 39(3) of Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972).
  • The Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal consists of the President and other Judicial and Administrative members, as may be appointed by the State Government. (Section 3 of Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal Act, 2006)

Punjab

Each Educational Tribunal is structured with a 3-member bench- a Chairman, a member of administrative background and a member of academic background. (Section 7-A(2) of Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1974)

Odisha

The tribunal is a single-member body, who is to be appointed by the State Government from the senior cadre of the state’s judicial service. (Section 24-A(2) of Orissa Education Act, 1969).

Jharkhand

The Tribunal has 3 members: a Chairman and one Administrative member and one Educationist member. (Section 4(1) of the Act)

Karnataka

The Educational Appellate Tribunal consists of a single member, who is or has been a Judicial Officer, atleast of the rank of a District Judge. (Section 96(2) of Karnataka Education Act, 1983)

Appointment Procedure

Gujarat

Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal:

  • Qualifications for appointment, under Section 4 of Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal Act, 2006, as a,—
  • (a) judicial member- District Judge for at least three years;
  • (b) administrative member- Secretary to the Government of Gujarat for at least three years.
  • The senior-most judicial member functions as President.
  • Term: 5 years, eligible for reappointment for another 5 years. (Section 5)
  • Age limit: 65 years (Section 5)

Punjab

  • The Chairman and the members of an Educational Tribunal are appointed by the State Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Section 7-A(3) of Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1974).
  • Qualifications for:
  • Chairman- Judge of the High Court
  • Member of administrative background- Officer of the State Government, atleast of the rank of a Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab.
  • Member of academic background- Principal of College for at least 1 year.

Jharkhand

  • Qualifications for appointment of Chairman and Member under Section 4(4) of Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005:
  • (i) Chairman- retired Judge of a High Court or retired senior officer of Indian Administrative Service.
  • (ii) Educationist member- Vice-Chancellor of any university; or University Professor (min. 5 years); or a member of the Class-I State Education Service (min. 15 years); or has been a specialist in the social, economic or political sphere.
  • (iii) Administrative member- must have served as Additional Secretaries or equivalent with at least two years of experience.
  • The Chairman and every other member of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal shall be appointed by the State Government.
  • Terms of Office under Section 4(5) – 3 years

Jurisdiction of education tribunals

Punjab

The Educational Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear all cases of disputes between the 'Managing Committees' and the 'employees', as defined under the Act, and the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979. (Section 7-A(12))

Gujarat

Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide disputes between the manager of a registered private secondary school and any person in service of such school. (Section 39 (4) and Section 38(1)). Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal has a wider jurisdiction of dealing with matters across various educational institutions, while the Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Tribunal deals specifically with matters relating to higher secondary educational institutions.

Jharkhand

The Tribunal has powers to deal with recruitment, service conditions, grievances or matters relating to educational institutions managed and administered by private management located within the State of Jharkhand. (Section 8)

Bar on civil court jurisdiction exists on matters that are required to be dealt with by education tribunals, in Gujarat (Section 40), Karnataka (Section 96(5)), Punjab (Section 8).

Apart from education tribunals, education matters may also be dealt with by the High Courts and Supreme Courts. In states that do not have education tribunals, such matters may be dealt with by the respective state administrative tribunals.

Powers and Procedure

Section 24-A(2) of Orissa Education Act, 1969:

  • The Tribunal has the power to call for records of all proceedings relating to the dispute and can, after giving the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, dispose of appeals.
  • In disposing of an appeal the Tribunal may make such consequential orders and issue such directions as it may deem necessary for giving effect to its decision.
  • The Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is to take into account principles of natural justice. (Section 24-B)

Section 7-A(10), (11) of Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1974 and Section 11(3) of Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005:

  • The Educational Tribunal has the power to regulate its own procedure in all matters arising out of the discharge of its functions, including the place at which it shall hold its sitting.
  • The Educational Tribunal, for the purposes of disposing an application made under this Act,has the same powers, as vested in an appellate court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An Educational Tribunal also has the power to grant stays on terms as it thinks appropriate.

Section 39(6) of Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 and Section 14 of Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal Act, 2006:

The Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit to summon witnesses, enforce attendance, and compel document production

Further, the Jharkhand Education Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also has the power to regulate its own procedure, including fixing of places and time of its inquiry and whether to sit in public or in camera (Section 11(1)).

Section 96(3) of The Karnataka Education Act, 1983

The Educational Appellate Tribunal can pass orders, including one for the reinstatement, payment of salary allowances and costs; It has, for the purposes of the disposal of the appeals, the same powers as are vested in a court of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It can grant stays to stay the operation of the order appealed against on such terms as it may think fit. For the purpose of execution of decrees, it has the same powers as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Finality of orders

Although the Acts provide for expeditious disposal of cases, there is no strict timeline prescribed for the same.

  • The decisions of the Tribunal shall be final and binding on all parties and shall not be called in question in any Court of Law (Section 24-A(5) of Orissa Education Act, 1969).
  • According to Section 24-C, a person aggrieved by an order/ decision/ judgement of the Tribunal may prefer an appeal before the High Court within a period of 60 days from the date of order/decision/ judgement.
  • The order of the School Education Tribunal shall be final.( Section 7-A(13) of Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1974)
  • Decision of Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal and Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Tribunal shall be final and cannot be called into question in any civil court (Section 17 of Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal Act, 2006 and Section 39(8) of Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972).
  • Appeal against the order/judgments passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal will lie before the Jharkhand High Court (Section 15 of Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005).

Challenges

Despite the Education Tribunals Bill, 2010 being passed in the Lok Sabha, it faced unexpected resistance in the Rajya Sabha. This led to its deferral. The challenges with the Bill highlighted during it deferral are as follows:

  • Structural and Operational Issues with the Tribunals

There is a lack of assessment of the actual volume and cost of education-related litigation before proposing tribunals. Further, setting up a uniform tribunal system across states was questioned, given the wide variation in the number of educational institutions and circumstances among the states.

  • Composition and Functioning Concerns

The minimum age limit set as 55 years for tribunal members was deemed arbitrary. Considering this challenge, the Standing Committee suggested selection based on competence, not age. There also lies a risk of non-judicial benches hearing cases due to chairperson vacancy, which violates Supreme Court norms that each bench must include a judicial member.

  • Legal and Procedural Ambiguities

The Bill lacks a clear definition of “unfair practice”, leading to potential legal ambiguity. The bill bars civil court jurisdiction, which raises concerns about checks and balances.

  • Issues with the Selection Process

The Selection Committee for national tribunals lacked academic representation. In response to this, the Standing Committee recommended including members from academia to ensure balanced perspectives.

  • Implementation and Enforcement Challenges

The efficacy of existing tribunals wasn’t reviewed. This challenge highlights the need for mechanisms to ensure that tribunal orders are enforceable and respected.

In essence, the Bill faced criticism for being insufficiently researched, legally flawed and procedurally weak, with inadequate stakeholder consultation and concerns about judicial independence, academic representation, and effective dispute resolution.

Research

Tanishk Goyal and Rishabh Narain Singh, “The (Un)Constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Education Tribunal Bill, 2019”[3]: The Uttar Pradesh Education Service Tribunal Bill, 2019, aimed to establish a specialized tribunal to adjudicate service disputes in higher education. However, it faced significant constitutional and legal challenges. Legislative competence: It is argued that the Uttar Pradesh legislature lacks the authority to establish such a tribunal. While Article 323-B of the Constitution allows both Parliament and state legislatures to create tribunals on specified matters, the proposed tribunal's scope—particularly its potential to bypass the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227—raises questions about its constitutional validity. The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, emphasized that while Articles 323-A and 323-B are enabling provisions, any tribunal must not encroach upon the judiciary's essential functions. Judicial Review and Superintendence: The bill's provisions could undermine the High Court's supervisory role. By potentially limiting access to writ remedies and judicial oversight, the tribunal might infringe upon the basic structure of the Constitution, which upholds the judiciary's independence and the principle of checks and balances. Independence of the Judiciary: The proposed tribunal's composition and appointment process may compromise judicial independence. If the executive has significant control over appointments or if the tribunal lacks safeguards ensuring impartiality, it could violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

Beyond constitutional issues, the bill sparked disputes over the tribunal's proposed location in Lucknow. Lawyers from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (AHCBA) and the Oudh Bar Association (OBA) opposed this decision, advocating for the tribunal's seat to be in Prayagraj (Allahabad). The Allahabad High Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter, questioning the rationale behind selecting Lucknow and suggesting that the state consult with stakeholders before finalizing the location. However, the Supreme Court later set aside the High Court's directive, stating that it encroached upon the executive's domain.

  1. ↑ T M A Pai v. State of Karnataka, 2002 INSC 454.
  2. ↑ Education Tribunals Bill, 2010, Bill No. 55 of 2010.
  3. ↑ Tanishk Goyal and Rishabh Narain Singh, “The (Un)Constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Education Tribunal Bill, 2019", Sept. 1st 2020.
Retrieved from "https://jdc-definitions.wikibase.wiki/w/index.php?title=Education_tribunal&oldid=6136"