Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ order or direction in the suitable nature restraining the respondents from assigning Booth Level Officer duty and other non teaching duties to petitioners, in view of National Education Policy, 2020. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to engage other employees as Booth Level Officer as mentioned in Election Commission direction issued from time to time on rotation basis. 3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to assign Booth Level Officer duty and other non teaching duties to petitioners only in Holidays, if necessary. 4. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to grant compensatory leaves to petitioners as per Government Order dated 26.7.1973 Para 1089 of Manual of Government Order issued by the Chief Secretary Uttar Pradesh Government on 12.9.1981. 5. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to give adequate remuneration for extra work to petitioners as per salary. 6. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers in District Kaushambi in the Primary Schools run by the Board of Basic Education and the State authorities have appointed them as a Booth Level Officer, which were not required to be performed in the capacity of Assistant Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 as well as rules framed thereunder. Section 27 of the Act of 2009 as well as rule 21(3) of the Rules of 2011 reads as under:- "Section 27. Prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes.- No teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority of the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be. Rule 21(3). For the purpose of maintaining the pupil-teacher ratio, no teacher posted in a school shall be made to serve in any other school or office or deployed for any non-educational purpose, other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislatures or Parliament." Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon an order passed by this Court in Sunita Sharma Advocate High Court & another Vs. State of U.P. & others (P.I.L. No.11028 of 2015), decided on 25.03.2015 and U.P. Pradeshiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh, Band & another Vs. State of U.P. & others (Writ Petition No.34082 of 2017), decided on 02.08.2017. Operative portion of the order dated 2.8.2017 reads as under:- "For the reasons mentioned above, I find that the order of the District Magistrate, Banda is unsustainable and is contrary to Section 27 of Act 2009 and the law laid down by this Court in Sunita Sharma (supra). Accordingly, the order of the District Magistrate dated 28.4.2017 is set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents that in future the services of teachers should be deployed strictly in terms of Section 27 of the Act, 2009 and they should not be deployed for any other non-educational purposes, which are not mentioned in Section 27 of the Act. Thus, the writ petition is allowed." In view of the law laid down by this Court, referred to above, the direction issued by the authorities requiring the petitioners to perform work contrary to section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is not liable to be sustained. In such circumstances, petitioners are permitted to approach the respondent no.2 in respect of their grievances along with a certified copy of this order, who shall issue necessary instructions to the concerned District Magistrate and District Basic Education Officer to the effect that provisions contained under Section 27 of the Act of 2009 shall be scrupulously complied with, and the Assistant Teachers shall not be assigned work in teeth of the provisions, referred to above. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2022
No comments:
Post a Comment