शिक्षको को गैर शिक्षकीय कार्य में नहीं लगाया जा सकता। स्थाई या अस्थाई दोनों तरह से नहीं लगाया जा सकता। बहुत जरूरी है तो अवकाश के समय उनसे काम लिया जा सकता है। शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम के बाद अब हाईकोर्ट ने भी फैसला सुना दिया है। इसके बाद भी यदि काई ऐसा करता है तो उसके खिलाफ हाईकोर्ट के आदेश की अवमानना की याचिका दाखिल कीजा सकती है। यह रहा फैसला
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14339 of 2019
Petitioner :- Prashant Yadav And 38 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, appearing for respondent No. 7 to 14.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, appearing for respondent No. 7 to 14 states that the controversy involved in this petition is similar to the controversy involved in Writ A-No.14275 of 2018 (Mani Bhooshan Sharma and 42 Ors., Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.,) decided on 18.07.2018, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. The judgment is quoted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
In all these writ petitions the common question involved is the deployment of the petitioners to prepare electoral rolls etc. An order has also been issued by the District Election Officer which has been impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that in view of the provisions of Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2009'), the petitioners cannot be deployed for any non educational purposes.
Sri R. P. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and learned counsels for District Basic Education Officer jointly submit that the petitioners have been deployed in terms of Section 27 of the Act, 2009. He relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in P.I.L. No.36449 of 2016 decided on 08.08.2016.
I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
Section 27 of the Act, 2009 provides as under:
"27 Prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes. ---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 the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be.
The aforesaid statutory mandate has been explained by a Division Bench of this Court in P.I.L. No.36449 of 2016 (Uttar Pradesh Prathmik Shikshak Sangh and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others) decided on 08.08.2016, as under:
"Heard Mr. Dharampal Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.C. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1,2,3,5 and 6, Mr. J.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Mr. B.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.7 and Mr. Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.8.
The petitioners-Sangh, in the instant writ petition, seek the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from compelling basic school teachers to perform the duties as Booth Level Officers and for Preparation, Revision, Maintenance and D-Duplication of the Electoral Roll/Voter List or any other duty which interferes in the regular functioning of basic school teachers in regularly teaching the students;
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities below for issuing a commission for local inspection of the various properties including shops which are owned and are in possession of the respondent."
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:
"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, non-teaching 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. Non-teaching staff, however, may be put on such duties on any day or at any time, if permissible in law."
Learned counsel for the respondents submit that they shall put the teaching staff on duty on non-teaching days and within non-teaching hours, as observed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned paragraph. Their submission is recorded and accepted.
In view thereof, nothing further survives in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of."
In view of the aforequoted Division Bench judgment of this Court, which has been passed following the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment in the case of Uttar Pradesh Prathmik Shikshak Sangh and 3 others (supra).
Impugned order stands modified to the extent it is in contradiction to the provision of Section 27 of the Act or the aforequoted Division Bench judgment."
In view of the above, this petition is finally disposed of in the same terms as in Writ A-No.14275 of 2018.
Order Date :- 23.9.2019
Arvind
