Allowed

Gaurav Kumar Yadav and 18 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2019WRIA/18178/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court held that deploying teachers for non-educational purposes outside the specific exceptions in Section 27 of the RTE Act, 2009 is unsustainable. Petitioners allowed to approach district authorities with this order, and authorities directed to ensure strict compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to approach respondent nos.1 and 2 with this order; authorities directed to issue instructions ensuring strict compliance with Section 27 of the RTE Act, 2009.

Gaurav Kumar Yadav and 18 Others Vs State of U.P… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 05 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18178 of 2019 Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Yadav And 18 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta

¶2

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Jay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for State-respondents and Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶4

Petitioners are Assistant Teachers except petitioner Nos.14, 16 and 17, who are headmasters.

¶5

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.

¶6

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:-

¶7

" 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.

¶8

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."

¶9

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:-

¶10

"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."

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of . Order Date :- 22.11.2019 NLY

Gaurav Kumar Yadav and 18 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Kumar Yadav and 18 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

Smt.Rekha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Suresh Kumar Tripathi Vs Lalit Kumar Pathak Manager Pt. Nehru Purva Mathyamik Vidh.

Balbeer Pal Vs N.K. Singh Chauhan Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam

Irfan Raza Khan Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Samreen Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others