Disposed

Ravi Shankar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2018WRIA/18377/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench disposed of the writ petition invoking the precedent set in Writ A-No.14275 of 2018 and Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which prohibits deploying teachers for non-educational purposes except for specific exceptions like elections. The order modified the impugned decision to align with statutory mandates and Supreme Court guide

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by modifying the impugned order to ensure teacher deployment for electoral duties complies with Section 27 of the Act and mandates only holiday or non-teaching schedule emplo

Ravi Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18377 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravi Shankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Bilas Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Ram Bilas Yadav, appearing for respondent Nod.2 and 3.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ram Bilas Yadav appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states that the controversy involved in this petition is similar to the controversy involved in Writ A-No.14275 of 2018 (Mani Bhooshan Sharma and 42 Ors., Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.,) decided on 18.07.2018. The judgment is quoted below:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

In all these writ petitions the common question involved is the deployment of the petitioners to prepare electoral rolls etc. An order has also been issued by the District Election Officer which has been impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that in view of the provisions of Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2009'), the petitioners cannot be deployed for any non educational purposes.

¶9

Sri R. P. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and learned counsels for District Basic Education Officer jointly submit that the petitioners have been deployed in terms of Section 27 of the Act, 2009. He relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in P.I.L. No.36449 of 2016 decided on 08.08.2016.

¶10

I have carefully considered the submissions of learned

¶11

counsel for the parties.

¶12

Section 27 of the Act, 2009 provides as under:

¶13

"27 Prohibition of deployment of teachers for noneducational 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.

¶14

The aforesaid statutory mandate has been explained by a Division Bench of this Court in P.I.L. No.36449 of 2016 (Uttar Pradesh Prathmik Shikshak Sangh and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others) decided on 08.08.2016, as under:

¶15

"Heard Mr. Dharampal Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.C. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1,2,3,5 and 6, Mr. J.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Mr. B.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.7 and Mr. Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.8.

¶16

The petitioners-Sangh, in the instant writ petition, seek the following reliefs:

¶17

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from compelling basic school teachers to perform the duties as Booth Level Officers and for Preparation, Revision, Maintenance and D-Duplication of the Electoral Roll/Voter List or any other duty which interferes in the regular functioning of basic school teachers in regularly teaching the students;

¶18

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities below for issuing a commission for local inspection of the various properties including shops which are owned and are in possession of the respondent."

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India Vs. St. Mary's School & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 390 and particularly paragraph 33 thereof, and submitted that in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, this writ petition may be disposed of in terms thereof. Paragraph 33 reads thus:

¶20

"33. We would, however, notice that the Election Commission before us also categorically stated that as far as possible teachers would be put on electoral roll revision works on holidays, non-teaching days and non-teaching hours; whereas non-teaching staff be put on duty any time. We, therefore, direct that all teaching staff shall be put on the duties of roll revisions and election works on holidays and non-teaching days. Teachers should not ordinarily be put on duty on teaching days and within teaching hours. Non-teaching staff, however, may be put on such duties on any day or at any time, if permissible in law."

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that they shall put the teaching staff on duty on non-teaching days and within non-teaching hours, as observed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned paragraph. Their submission is recorded and accepted.

¶22

In view thereof, nothing further survives in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of."

¶23

In view of the aforequoted Division Bench judgment of this Court, which has been passed following the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment in the case of Uttar Pradesh Prathmik Shikshak Sangh and 3 others (supra).

¶24

Impugned order stands modified to the extent it is in contradiction to the provision of Section 27 of the Act or the aforequoted Division Bench judgment."

¶25

In view of the above, this petition is finally disposed of in

¶26

the same terms as in Writ A-No.14275 of 2018 .

¶27

Order Date :- 29.8.2018 NSC

Ravi Shankar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Shankar v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Sushil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Babu Singh Vijai and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bhaleshwer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Neha Garg and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others