Back
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi
Election Commission of India - PETITIONER
Versus
St. Mary's School and Others - RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 5659 of 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5659 OF 2007
Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21963 of 2004
Decide On : 06/12/2007
Conflict in Constitutional Rights - Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - Sections 13-A, 13-AA, 13B, 13CC, 29, 26, 28A, 151, 159 - The judgment involves balancing the conflict between the right to education and the sovereign function of holding elections. The court discussed the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and its rules, emphasizing the obligation of schools to function for a minimum of 210 days in a year. The court also highlighted the constitutional and statutory provisions related to the requisitioning of staff for election work, and the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. The judgment focused on balancing the imperative of holding elections with the obligation to provide education, ultimately directing that teaching staff should be utilized for election work on holidays and non-teaching days, and not on teaching days and within teaching hours.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a conflict between the right to education and the sovereign function of holding elections. An unaided school filed a writ petition questioning the utilization of teachers for non-educational purposes during school hours, leading to unfinished courses, high drop-out rates, and poor results. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi contended that the absence of teachers for election duties was in national interest. During the proceedings, the Government of NCT of Delhi issued a circular letter proposing to utilize teaching staff for election duties due to insufficient staff in the generalist cadre.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while holding elections is imperative for upholding democracy, the right to education is a fundamental right. It emphasized the importance of education and the duty of the State to provide free and compulsory education for children until the age of 14 years. The court directed that teaching staff should be utilized for election work on holidays and non-teaching days, and not on teaching days and within teaching hours.
Issues: The main issue was the conflict between the imperative of holding elections and the obligation to provide education, specifically regarding the utilization of teaching staff for non-educational purposes during school hours.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the conflicting rights by considering the constitutional and statutory provisions related to the requisitioning of staff for election work, and the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the obligation of schools to function for a minimum of 210 days in a year and directed that teaching staff should be utilized for election work on holidays and non-teaching days, and not on teaching days and within teaching hours.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed that teaching staff should be utilized for election work on holidays and non-teaching days, and not on teaching days and within teaching hours.
Key Points: - The court balanced the right to education under Article 21A with the sovereign function of holding elections. (!) (!) - It held that teaching staff should be utilized for election work on holidays and non-teaching days, not during teaching hours. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Non-teaching staff may be deployed for election duties on any day, but teaching hours should be preserved; the decision directed consistent implementation to protect minimum 210 schooling days. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J --. Leave granted.
2. A short but interesting question, as to how conflict in two constitutional rights should be balanced, is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.08.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1076 of 2003.
3. Respondent No.1 is an unaided school. It is governed by the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder. It filed a writ petition in public interest, questioning the action of the appellant and the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein as regards utilizing the services of the teachers of the Government schools for various purposes during school timings, as a result whereof the students reading in the said schools are deprived of obtaining instructions from their teachers during such period. In the writ petition it was pointed out that the absence of teachers occur due to their deployment for non- educational purposes; and as the teaching and administrative staff of these schools have been used by the State agencies as well as the appellant herein for various other duties outside school during school hours including:
Polling duties to general election to Lok Sabha
Polling duties to general election to Delhi Legislative Assembly
Polling duties to MCD elections
Gurudwara election
Revision of polling lists
Pulse polio drive
Preparation of census lists
Surveys on malaria, pollution etc.
4. The Act and the Rules framed thereunder which govern the field mandate that all the schools in Delhi have to function for a minimum of 210 days in a year. It was pointed out that although the extent of the period differed, the teachers were asked to perform polling duties for a few months and also for census duties for considerable period. The writ petition highlighted that absence of teachers from the school for a long time resulted in unfinished courses, high drop out rates, poor results and inability to compete in open examinations, such as medicine, engineering etc. and/or to get admission in other prestigious or professional colleges. It was contended that an informal survey conducted by the petitioner therein demonstrated that about 9,00,000 students had enrolled themselves in class 1 of the schools run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, but only 50,000 of them appeared in the secondary examination.
5. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in its counter affidavit contended that absence of the teachers and other administrative staff of schools for performing duties allocated by the officers of the Election Commission is in national interest. In the counter affidavit, it was, stated:
"3. That the main work assigned to teachers is in relation to teaching work. However, in the larger national interest, some of the teachers are called upon to do some other Government work relating to public interests like polio vaccination, preparation of voter list, etc.
4. That only during the work of census in the year 2001, a slightly large number of teachers were required for the purpose. Even for this purpose, to take care that the teaching activities are not hampered in any manner, letter No. F-4/12/2000 dated 04.02.01, referring to the Order of Lt. Governor of the NCT of Delhi having been passed, whereby the enumerators were directed to perform their census enumeration duties before/after their normal school hours. The census work is conducted only once in a decade."
5. That it is reiterated that it is seen that the government work relating to public interest done by the teachers does not hamper the teaching activities. The additional government public work is some time assigned to some of the teachers in national interest."
6. The New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) in its additional affidavit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
