The court affirmed that Pre-Primary Education is a fundamental right, mandating the Government to provide adequate service conditions and honorarium for Teachers and Ayahs.

JUDGMENT :

(HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.)

[WP(C) Nos.5506/2014, 5298/2020, 17659/2023, 5507/2014, 5681/2014, 5775/2014, 5799/2014, 5916/2014, 5934/2014, 5960/2014, 6111/2014, 6125/2014, 6126/2014, 6289/2014, 8660/2014, 9999/2014, 13476/2015, 29515/2017, 40027/2022, 31561/2024]

These writ petitions have a chequered history. The petitioners in these writ petitions are Pre-Primary School Teachers and Ayahs, attached to various Government Pre- Primary Schools appointed by the respective Parent Teachers Association.

2. They were being paid only a paltry sum as honorarium, without framing their service conditions from the side of the Government. In such circumstances, the petitioners herein were before this Court on an earlier round of litigation by filing separate writ petitions. The Government took the stand that the Teachers/Ayahs were not employed by the Government and hence, the Government has no role to play. The writ petitions were closed on the basis of the afore-stand taken by the Government. The matter was carried in further appeal, and a learned Division Bench of this Court, as early as on 01.08.2012 in Writ Appeal No.205 of 2011, produced as Ext.P1 in W.P(C) No.5506 of 2014, took note of the rival contentions and found that the Government cannot take shelter on the submission that the appointment is not being made by them. This Court noticed that the pre-primary education is a mandatory requirement/right of every student with reference to the provisions of Section 11 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, the Right to Education Act). This Court also noticed the qualification required for the Teachers as well as the Ayahs and held that, in such circumstances, the State should own up the responsibility.After rendering the afore, this Court found as under:

“9. Since the Government has not expressed any view contrary to the above but has only sought time for ultimate implementation, we feel we should leave all matters to be settled by the Government by evolving suitable Policy in regard to Pre-Primary Education in the State. In the Government communication dated 31.07.2012, it is stated that the State Government has taken up the matter with the Central Government for their decision. However, Section 11 of the Right to Education Act casts burden of pre-School Education to appropriate Government, which at least in respect of Government Primary Schools is the State Government. Probably in the case of Central Schools and Schools under the CBSE and ICSE Boards, the appropriate Government may be the Central Government, which has to make arrangement and even funding. However, we do not think there is any need for this Court to decide as to whether the State Government or the Central Government has to meet the cost, or whether it should be shared between the Governments, and if so the ratio or pattern thereof, which are all matters for decision between the two Governments. All what we are constrained to hold is that going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan’s case above referred and Section 11 of the Right to Education Act, Pre- Primary Education also is a fundamental right of the people and it is the duty of the appropriate Government to provide free and compulsory Pre-School Education without which the objective of elementary education under the Right to Education Act cannot be achieved.

10. We declare the above position and direct the state Government in consultation with the central Government to evolve suitable Policy and Scheme for imparting Pre-School Education to the student community in the State. Since Self Financing schools are also permitted to impart coaching even for elementary education and since section 8(a) of the Right to Education Act specifically prohibits reimbursement of cost in such Schools by the Governm