The Allahabad High Court has stayed the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Election Registration Officer, Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur to take election related work from a teacher.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Sanyami Sharma.
By means of the impugned order passed by the respondent No 3-Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Election Registration Officer, Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur, the petitioner has been directed to undertake various election related duties.
The same is effecting interfering in the academic duties of the petitioner and impairing the quality of teaching.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the teachers cannot be requisitioned to perform ministerial work. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench Judgement of the Court in Sunita Sharma Advocate High Court and Another Vs State of UP and others.
The Court noted that,
In Sunita Sharma (supra) the Division Bench held as under:
“The right of children to free and compulsory education between the age of six to fourteen has been statutorily recognized in Section 3(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20091. This is in pursuance of the fundamental right conferred by Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.
The Act provides in Chapter IV the responsibilities of schools and teachers. Section 27 specifically contains a prohibition on the deployment of
teachers for non-educational purposes. Under Section 27, 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 to the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be.
In view of this statutory prohibition, it is clearly unlawful and ultra vires on the part of the State to requisition the services of teachers for carrying out the verification of eligible card holding families. The right to free and compulsory education for children below the age of 14 is a constitutionally protected entitlement which is statutorily recognized in the Act.
The State is not powerless, if it requires hands for completing the work of verification by recruiting contract employees or making suitable alternate arrangements, but such arrangements cannot involve the deployment of teachers. The duties of teachers is simply to teach students. Their status cannot be reduced to that of a ministerial employee of the State. It is no answer to state, as the District Supply Officer has in the counter affidavit, that the teachers are called upon to do the work of verification as and when they are free from school duties. A teacher after the completion of the hours of work in a school is expected to spend time in preparing for the classes for the next day and to pursue his or her own process of enhancing knowledge and learning to impart education to the children.
It requires no stretch of imagination to hold that burdening a teacher with duties, after school hours in carrying out ministerial duties, such as the verification of eligible families, would only detract from her ability and capacity to teach students. It is time for the State to realise, if it is serious about implementing the right to free and compulsory education for children between ages of six to fourteen in the State of Uttar Pradesh that teachers cannot be treated in such a casual and callous manner. The civility of a society is defined with reference to the value it places on education and the respect which it holds for its teachers. Those may be traditional values but fortunately, some values are eternal. The position of a teacher is a critical element in dispensing education which must be recognized, protected and observed. Such action which has been taken by an officer of the State is clearly in violation of the duty cast upon the State.”
By the second order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the respondent No 3-Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Election Registration Officer, Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur, the salary of the petitioner has been withheld. The order dated 29.10.2024 was passed by adopting a procedure not known to law. Matter requires consideration, the Court observed.
“Till further orders of the Court, the effect and operation of the undated impugned order issued by the respondent No 3-Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Election Registration Officer, Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur as well as the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the respondent No 3, shall remain stayed.
The respondents-authorities are directed to forthwith release the salary of the petitioner and disburse the same as and when it becomes due,” the Court ordered.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on 10.12.2024.
The post appeared first on .
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Sanyami Sharma.
By means of the impugned order passed by the respondent No 3-Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Election Registration Officer, Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur, the petitioner has been directed to undertake various election related duties.
The same is effecting interfering in the academic duties of the petitioner and impairing the quality of teaching.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the teachers cannot be requisitioned to perform ministerial work. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench Judgement of the Court in Sunita Sharma Advocate High Court and Another Vs State of UP and others.
The Court noted that,
In Sunita Sharma (supra) the Division Bench held as under:
“The right of children to free and compulsory education between the age of six to fourteen has been statutorily recognized in Section 3(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20091. This is in pursuance of the fundamental right conferred by Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.
The Act provides in Chapter IV the responsibilities of schools and teachers. Section 27 specifically contains a prohibition on the deployment of
teachers for non-educational purposes. Under Section 27, 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 to the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be.
In view of this statutory prohibition, it is clearly unlawful and ultra vires on the part of the State to requisition the services of teachers for carrying out the verification of eligible card holding families. The right to free and compulsory education for children below the age of 14 is a constitutionally protected entitlement which is statutorily recognized in the Act.
The State is not powerless, if it requires hands for completing the work of verification by recruiting contract employees or making suitable alternate arrangements, but such arrangements cannot involve the deployment of teachers. The duties of teachers is simply to teach students. Their status cannot be reduced to that of a ministerial employee of the State. It is no answer to state, as the District Supply Officer has in the counter affidavit, that the teachers are called upon to do the work of verification as and when they are free from school duties. A teacher after the completion of the hours of work in a school is expected to spend time in preparing for the classes for the next day and to pursue his or her own process of enhancing knowledge and learning to impart education to the children.
It requires no stretch of imagination to hold that burdening a teacher with duties, after school hours in carrying out ministerial duties, such as the verification of eligible families, would only detract from her ability and capacity to teach students. It is time for the State to realise, if it is serious about implementing the right to free and compulsory education for children between ages of six to fourteen in the State of Uttar Pradesh that teachers cannot be treated in such a casual and callous manner. The civility of a society is defined with reference to the value it places on education and the respect which it holds for its teachers. Those may be traditional values but fortunately, some values are eternal. The position of a teacher is a critical element in dispensing education which must be recognized, protected and observed. Such action which has been taken by an officer of the State is clearly in violation of the duty cast upon the State.”
By the second order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the respondent No 3-Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Election Registration Officer, Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur, the salary of the petitioner has been withheld. The order dated 29.10.2024 was passed by adopting a procedure not known to law. Matter requires consideration, the Court observed.
“Till further orders of the Court, the effect and operation of the undated impugned order issued by the respondent No 3-Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Election Registration Officer, Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur as well as the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the respondent No 3, shall remain stayed.
The respondents-authorities are directed to forthwith release the salary of the petitioner and disburse the same as and when it becomes due,” the Court ordered.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on 10.12.2024.
The post appeared first on .