Alok Giri and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024WRIA/7452/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner teachers challenged a circular treating Head Teachers in small schools as surplus for reassignment. The court stayed the operation of the circular regarding these specific teachers while granting ten days to the State to submit a written response on maintainability and merits.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on the circular's provision treating Head Teachers in schools with <150 students as surplus teachers; order connected with another petition.

Alok Giri and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7452 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Alok Giri And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Shukla,Amrendra Nath Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Rishabh Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi alongwith Mr. Durga Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite party no. 1, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3.

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

It is submitted that the Act of 2009 thereafter was notified with the schedule indicating norms and standards for a school

¶12

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 students strength of less than 150 children.

¶13

It is submitted that paragraph 2 of the aforesaid impugned circular dated 16.08.2024 contains a prescription that for schools having students 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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 students 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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. Submission 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.

¶21

Connect and list alongwith Writ-A No. 7241 of 2024.

¶22

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 students 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Satish

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alok Giri and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Giri and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko 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

Mohd. Saifi @ Samiul Haq Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Ram Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dr. Siddhartha Patel @ Dr.Siddhartha Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Manoj @ Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Kamlesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rizwan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.