UPPSS, ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, BASIC SHIKSHA NEWS : विद्यालय समय के बाद शिक्षकों को गैर शैक्षणिक कार्य में लगाए जाने पर माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की तल्ख टिप्पणियां, प्रा0शि0संघ बाँदा की याचिका पर आरटीई एक्ट में वर्णित कार्यों से अलग ड्यूटी न कराये जाने का के सम्बन्ध में आदेश ।
नीचे आदेश के कुछ अंश :-
“172. Right to free education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years (Art.45). It is noteworthy that among the several articles in Part IV, only Article 45 speaks of a timelimit; no other article does. Has it no significance? Is it a mere pious with, even after 44 years of the Constitution? Can the State flout the said direction even after 44 years on the ground that the article merely calls upon it to “endeavour to provide” the same and on the further ground that the said article is not enforceable by virtue of the declaration in Article 37. Does not the passage of 44 years — more than four times the period stipulated in Article 45 — convert the obligation created by the article into an enforceable right? In this context, we feel constrained to say that allocation of available funds to different sectors of education in India discloses an inversion of priorities indicated by the Constitution. The Constitution contemplated a crash programme being undertaken by the State to achieve the goal set out in Article 45. It is relevant to notice that Article 45 does not speak of the “limits of its economic capacity and development” as does Article 41, which inter alia speaks of right to education. What has actually happened is — more money is spent and more attention is directed to higher education than to — and at the cost of — primary education. (By primary education, we mean the education, which a normal child receives by the time he completes 14 years of age.) Neglected more so are the rural sectors, and the weaker sections of the society referred to in Article 46. We clarify, we are not seeking to lay down the priorities for the Government — we are only emphasising the constitutional policy as disclosed by Articles 45, 46 and 41. Surely the wisdom of these constitutional provisions is beyond question. This inversion of priorities has been commented upon adversely by both the educationists and economists.
“175. Be that as it may, we must say that at least now the State should honour the command of Article 45. It must be made a reality — at least now. Indeed, the National Education Policy 1986 says that the promise of Article 45, will be redeemed before the end of this century. Be that as it may, we hold that a child (citizen) has a fundamental right to free education up to the age of 14 years.”
For the sake to
convenience, Section 27 is extracted below:
“27. Prohibition of deployment of teachers for noneducationalpurposes. No teacher shall be deployed for any noneducational
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.”
Rule 21(3) of the U.P. Rules, 2011 (special rule) reads in the following terms: “(3) For the purpose of maintaining the pupilteacher ratio, no teacher posted in a school shall be made to serve in any other school or office or deployed for any noneducational 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.”
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 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 21A 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 noneducational purposes. Under Section 27, no teacher shall be deployed for any noneducational 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. In fact, on a reading of the circular issued by the Chief Secretary on 23 January 2015, it is clear that no direction was contained therein to requisition the services of teachers. The Chief Secretary had, therefore, carefully not issued any such direction. What the District Administration has done is to follow a convenient method of requisitioning the services of teachers without the authority of law and, as we have noted earlier, it is in clear defiance of the mandate contained in Section 27 of the Act. The State must cease and desist from resorting to such unlawful behaviour.”
आदेश के कुछ अंश का हिन्दी रूपांतरण:-
🌑 विद्यालय समय के बाद शिक्षकों से कार्य कराए जाने सम्बन्धी सरकारी कथन पर भी न्यायालय ने दी तीखी प्रतिक्रिया- शिक्षकों को विद्यालय समय के बाद करनी होती है अगले दिन की कक्षाओं की तैयारी, वो समय ज्ञान वृद्धि के लिए है न कि चपरासी जैसे कार्य करने का।
🔵 न्यायालय ने की तल्ख टिप्पणी - शिक्षकों से क्लास तीन कर्मियों के समान राशन कार्ड का सत्यापन कराना अनन्त समय से निर्मित उनकी प्रतिष्ठा को नीचे दिखाना है।
🔵 स्कूल समय के बाद शिक्षकों पर अन्य ड्यूटी लादना, बच्चों को पढ़ाने की उनकी क्षमता और योग्यता को जानबूझकर कम करने के समान
🔴 डीएम द्वारा राशन कार्ड सत्यापन में ड्यूटी लगाए जाने पर दायर की गई याचिका में मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा की गई महत्वपूर्ण टिप्पणियां, आदेश के मुख्य अंश देखें
🔵 दशकीय जनगणना, आपदा राहत, चुनाव ड्यूटी के अतिरिक्त किसी अन्य कार्य मे नहीं लगाई जा सकती शिक्षक की ड्यूटी
As noted above, Section 27 of Act, 2009 provides certificate for the election duty for State Legislative Assembly and Parliament, as mentioned therein. 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 noneducational purposes, which are not mentioned in Section 27 of the Act. Thus, the writ petition is allowed.