Teachers Of UP Sports Colleges Society Not 'Public Servants', Can't Approach State Public Services Tribunal: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that teachers in the sports colleges run by the U.P. Sports Colleges Society are not “public servants” under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976, and that their claim petitions are not maintainable before the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal.

Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976 covers a person in the service or pay of the State Government, a local authority other than a Cantonment Board, or any other corporation owned or controlled by the State Government.

The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,

“the teachers working in the sports colleges run by the Society are not “Public Servants” in the service of or in the pay of the State Government, as they are employees of the sports colleges and are paid salaries out of the grant-in-aid received by the sports colleges under Rule 369-A, contained in the Financial Handbook, Volume 5, Part I. Neither the U.P. Sports College Society nor the colleges run by it fall within the ambit of a “local authority”, as they have not been constituted as a unit of local self-government or village administration for the purpose of managing municipal or local affairs, as contemplated under Section 4(25) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, which defines the term “local authority”.”

“The jurisdiction of a statutory tribunal cannot be enlarged merely on grounds of convenience, equity, or the public character of the employer. Its jurisdiction must be traceable to the express provisions of the enactment under which it has been constituted.”

Respondent no.2 was appointed Assistant Teacher (Football) at Sports College, Dehradun in 1994 with the approval of the Board of Management of the Sports Society, later moved to Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow, and retired on 30.04.2023. His pay was then re-fixed on account of discrepancies in its fixation and the excess paid to him ordered to be recovered. He challenged those orders before the Tribunal, which on 04.09.2025 rejected the college's objection to maintainability and held him to be a public servant.

The Principal of the college argued that the Society appoints its teachers and pays them out of grant-in-aid, so they are not public servants, and that relief claimed by a retired employee is not a “service matter” under Section 2(bb). Respondent no.2 relied on the college being fully funded by the State Government.

The Court rejected the second objection, holding that pay fixation goes directly to the conditions of service and that wrong pay fixation is a continuing wrong giving a fresh cause of action every month, which applies equally to a pensioner.

The Court noted that the Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and that its Board of Management, chaired by the Minister of Sports, consists of government officials apart from the college Principal, its ex-officio Secretary. That, it held, does not dilute the Society's character as an independent and autonomous body.

It held that the Board sanctions the colleges' budgets and controls appointments and removals of teaching staff, and the record showed respondent no.2 was appointed and confirmed by the Society. The colleges are funded by grant-in-aid, which under Rule 369-A of the Financial Handbook, Volume 5, Part I can go only to a body independent of the Government with a separate legal status, it held.

“This Court is of the view that the teachers are paid salaries by the sports colleges, which are run and managed by the Board of Management of the Society, out of the grants received from the State Government for the maintenance of these sports colleges under the General Rules for Grant-In-Aid. Such grants can be extended only to a person or body independent of the Government and having a separate legal status. Thus, it cannot be said that the teachers are in pay of the State Government.”

The Society is also not a “local authority” as defined in Section 4(25) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, nor a “corporation”, the Supreme Court having held in Illachi Devi (D) by LRs. and Others v. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India and Others that a society registered under the Act, 1860 is not a corporation.

“Thus, in view of the above, the irrefutable conclusion can be drawn that the U.P. Sports College Society is an independent and autonomous body registered under the Act, 1860, irrespective of the fact that the members of its Board of Management are government officials and does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976.”

Accordingly, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the proceedings in Claim Petition No.281 of 2025 quashed, with liberty to respondent no.2 to take his grievance to any other appropriate forum, including by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The writ petition was allowed.