Disposed

Pallavi @ Pallavi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024WRIA/196/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench disposed of a writ petition challenging the petitioner's posting as a Booth Level Officer. Relying on prior directions that teaching staff should serve during holidays or non-teaching hours, the court set aside the impugned order without expressing a substantive opinion on the statutory bar.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with the impugned order dated 8.8.2023 treated as modified in light of the Division Bench direction that teaching staff be posted only during holidays or non-teaching

Pallavi @ Pallavi Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3004

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 196 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Pallavi @ Pallavi Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Tiwari,Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Net Ram,Ran Vijay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.8.2023 passed by the Deputy District Magistrate, Tehsil Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri posting the petitioner as Booth Level Officer for election duties.

¶8

It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being an Assistant Teacher cannot, under Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 be appointed as Booth Level Officer.

¶9

The aforesaid controversy was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 36449 of 2016 which was disposed of by this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Election Commission of India vs. St. Mary's School & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 390 . The relevant observations of the Division Bench of this Court referring to the observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced below : -

¶10

" 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:

¶11

"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, nonteaching 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. Nonteaching staff, however, may be put on such duties on any day or at any time, if permissible in law." "

¶12

The Standing Counsel and the counsel for the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad submit that they shall put the teaching staff on duty on non-teaching days and within nonteaching hours, as observed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned paragraph. Their submission is recorded and accepted.

¶13

In light of the statement given by the counsel for the respondents, the petition is disposed of treating the impugned order dated 8.8.2023 modified in light of the observations of the Division Bench and the statement of the counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 Satyam

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SATYAM AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pallavi @ Pallavi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallavi @ Pallavi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Badri Prasad Verma Vs Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam Urban Lko. and 2 Others

Munni Lal Vs State of U.P. through the Secy.Basic Education Lucknow

Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs the U.P.Cooperative Institutional Service Board Lucknow

Pallavi @ Pallavi Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Nafis Ahamad Vs the Managing Director (Rural )U.P. Jal Nigam Lko and 2 Others

Dr. Brijesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Medical and Health and 3 Others