Partly allowed

Anil Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Adl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024WRIA/7311/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench heard a writ petition challenging a circular treating Head Teachers in Basic Schools with less than 150 students as surplus. The court prima facie found force in petitioner submissions and stayed the said provision while demanding a response from the State.

What did the court decide?

Stay on the provisions of paragraph 2 of the circular dated 16.08.2024 treating Head Teachers in Basic Schools with student strength less than 150 as surplus.

Anil Kumar Singh and Others vs State of U.P… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7311 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Adl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Net Ram,Ran Vijay Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1, 2 & 5, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 3 & 4 and Mr. Net Ram, learned counsel for opposite party no. 6.

¶6

Under challenge is the portion of circular dated 16.08.2024 pertaining to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress who are required to be transferred/adjusted being treated as surplus teachers in terms of schedule referable to Sections 19 and 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2009) .

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that earlier the conditions of service and appointment to the aforesaid posts were governed by the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 in pursuance of which the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 were notified on 03.01.1981 and defined a teacher under Section 2 (d-1) to mean a person employed for imparting instructions in Nursery Schools, Basic Schools, Junior Basic Schools or Senior Basic Schools.

¶8

It is submitted that thereafter the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 were also published on 18.08.2008 and defined the term 'teacher' under Section 2 (s) to mean a person appointed for imparting education in a Junior Basic School or Senior Basic School.

¶9

It is therefore submitted that the post of Headmaster/Headmistress would be subsumed in the definition of teacher since the Headmaster/Headmistress of a particular school also imparts education.

¶10

It is submitted that the Act of 2009 thereafter was notified with the schedule indicating norms and standards for a school prescribing student-teacher ratio. It is submitted that although the aforesaid schedule prescribes the post of Head Teacher for a school having student strength above 150, the post of Head Teacher is not prescribed for schools having student-strength of less than 150 children.

¶11

It is submitted that paragraph 2 of aforesaid impugned circular dated 16.08.2024 contains a prescription that for schools having student-strength of 0 to 150, the Head Teacher of such a school is to be treated compulsorily as surplus and required to be adjusted elsewhere.

¶12

It is therefore submitted that since there is no specific prescription classifying the post of Head Teacher as being distinct and separate from that of a teacher, such a classification made in the circular is arbitrary and unreasonable and is not relatable to the object sought to be achieved by the Act or the schedule made thereunder. As such it is submitted that the aforesaid classification is clearly unreasonable.

¶13

It is submitted that the aforesaid circular has purportedly been issued in compliance of directions issued by the State Government vide Government Order dated 26.06.2024 but there is no such condition either under the aforesaid Act, Rules or even in the said Government Order requiring such a classification to be made.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner has thereafter adverted to the fact that Writ-A No. 10686 of 2024, Govind Kaushik and

¶15

others versus State of U.P. and others was filed challenging Clauses 2 (3), 2 (7), 2 (8) and 2 (9) of the Government Order dated 26.06.2024. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.07.2024 but was restricted to the stand taken by the State that the aforesaid policy would be partially modified so as to rely on the student-teacher ratio as on 30.06.2024. It is therefore submitted that the aforesaid judgment has not at all adverted to the issue raised in the present writ petition and would therefore not constitute a binding precedent.

¶16

Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that the impugned circular has been issued in pursuance of the schedule to the Act of 2009 and to further its purpose and objective as also in terms of Government Order dated 26.06.2024, particularly Clause 17 thereof conferring power upon the Board to issue necessary directions pertaining to maintaining the student-teacher ratio for every such school and for adjustment of surplus teachers. It is submitted that there are various Basic Schools in the State without any Head Teacher and the provisions contained in the impugned circular are primarily for fulfillment of the conditions for appointment on the post of Head Teacher in such schools where such post is vacant. He has submitted that the aforesaid requirement is in terms of the student-teacher ratio required for those schools having student-strength of more than 150. He has also submitted that the aforesaid issue has since attained finality by judgment rendered in the case of Govind Kausik (supra) and does not require to be re-agitated in the present petition.

¶17

Learned counsel for opposite parties also submits that since as yet no transfer orders have been passed, the present petition is only on the basis of an apprehension and since notices have been issued to petitioners requiring their options, they may

¶18

represent with regard to same which shall be considered and decided.

¶19

Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted ten days' time to file a response thereto. Submissions of learned counsel for opposite parties regarding writ petition being filed only on apprehension are unfounded since the circular pertaining to adjustment is under challenge. The said objections are accordingly rejected.

¶20

Connect and list along with WRIT - A No. - 7241 of 2024.

¶21

Until further order of this Court, the provisions of paragraph 2 of the circular dated 16.08.2024 so far as they indicate a Head Teacher of a Basic School having student-strength of less than 150 to be treated as surplus for purpose of adjustment, shall remain stayed and consequently the present working of petitioners shall not be disturbed.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 kvg/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Adl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Adl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko and 5 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

Smt. Rupa Samajdar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Mamta Sinha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Firoj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Md. Nadeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Jairam Rajpoot vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Padma Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another