Disposed

Babita Yadav and 24 Others v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2018WRIA/15702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that directing Assistant Teachers to perform non-educational duties violates Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The petition was disposed of, allowing petitioners to seek job-related grievances from local authorities while mandating compliance with the Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to approach District Magistrates with certified copy within two weeks; direction issued for scrupulous compliance of Section 27.

Babita Yadav and 24 Others Vs State of U P and 4… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15702 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Babita Yadav And 24 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

Petitioners are Assistant Teachers.

¶6

Their grievance is that authorities of State and Parishad are appointing them as Block Level Officer and various works, which are not required to be performed by teachers, have been entrusted to them.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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:-

¶8

"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 or the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be.

¶9

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."

¶10

Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon an order passed by this Court in U.P. Pradeshiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh, Band and another vs. State of U.P. and others being Writ Petition No.34082 of 2017, decided on 2.8.2017. Operative portion of the order dated 2.8.2017 reads as under:-

¶11

"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."

¶12

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.

¶13

In such circumstances, petitioners are permitted to approach respondent nos.1 and 2 in respect of their grievance noticed above, alongwith certified copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from today. The authorities concerned shall issue necessary instructions to the concerned District Magistrates and District Basic Education Officer of different districts 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.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Ak/

Babita Yadav and 24 Others v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita Yadav and 24 Others v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Babre and 58 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Narsingh Rai Vs Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi, and 3 Others

Upender Singh and 55 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Imaliya Junior High School, Jalaun and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ratnesh Kumar Pandey and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others