SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 2065

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : IRSHAD ALI, J.
Smt. REENA SINGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition (S/S) Nos. 25238, 28077, 25135, 26107, 26295, 26389, 26608, 27119, 27551, 27563, 27805, 27813, 27824, 27829, 27831, 27832, 27998, 28000, 28026, 28076, 28094, 28099, 28198, 28298, 28330, 28356, 28385, 28395, 28588, 28593, 28610, 28626, 28702, 28710, 28730, 28763, 28775, 28825, 28994, 29003, 29019, 29086, 29187, 29256, 29258, 29308, 29466, 29486, 29519, 29598, 29648, 29690, 29695, 29811, 29814, 29882, 29886, 29895, 30007, 30055, 30060, 30063, 30070, 30073, 30074, 30232, 30281, 30318, 30346, 30373, 30383, 30519, 30527, 29544, 30964, 31622, 31704, 31754, 31914, 31945, 31768, 31787, 31846, 31951, 29979, 30394, 30661, 30707, 30753, 30720, 30802, 30805, 30818, 30820, 30862, 30865, 30866, 30913, 30949, 31003, 31110, 31138, 31164, 31238, 31267, 31343, 31354, 31356, 32072, 32075, 32255, 32385, 32445, 32468, 32503, 32545, 32548, 32667, 32757, 32770, 32739 and 32736 of 2018, decided on 11th December, 2018)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Awadhesh Kumar Misra, Hari Kant, Dharmendra Kumar Misra, Syed Anzar Husain, Vijay Dixit, Durga Prasad Shukla, Atul Dixit, Umesh Kumar Yadav, Prakarsh Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Neeraj Singh, Amit Srivastava, Mohd. Mansoor, Mohammad Danish, Manish Mathur, Dharmendra Kumar Maurya, Anurag Shukla, Mukesh Kumar, Manjusha Kapil, Neerav Chitravanshi, Aseem Samant, Deomani Tripathi, O.P. Tiwari, Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Brij Raj, Satyaveer Singh, Parashu Ram Kanaujia, Dileep Kumar Mishra, Abhishek Dwivedi, Akash Dikshit, Alok Kumar Srivastava, Pankaj Gupta, Santosh Kr. Yadav “Warsi”, Nirankar Singh, Gyanendra Singh Sikarwar, Kuldeep Singh, Manish Mathur, Sunil Kumar Gupta, Ram Raj, Gulrez Khan, Javed Husain Khan, Pawan Kumar Pandey, Adarsh Kumar Maurya, Birendra Prasad Maurya, Ram Kawal Maurya, Vinod Kumar Singh, Shiwa Sagar Singh, Dileep Kumar Mishra, Abhishek Dwivedi, R.N. Shukla, Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Vijay Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Krishna Madhav Shukla, Atul Kumar Yadav, Anoop Vajpayee, Deomani Tripathi, Aniruddha Singh, Naveen Awasthi, Dinesh Chandra Tewari, D.P. Singh, Sarvesh Tripathi, Sachin Tejashwi, Mohammad Babar Khan, Ashutosh Shukla, Shashank Singh, Sanjeev Agnihotri, Shishir Pradhan, Rajwant Singh, Deepti Gupta, Atma Ram Mishra, Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, Satendra Pal Singh, Onkar Singh Kushwaha, Nishant Shukla, Amar Singh, Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui, Azra Shaheen, Raj Deo Singh, Vaibhav Gupta, Rakesh Kumar, Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Shiv Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Pushpakar, Arjun Singh Somvanshi, Gyanendra Kumar Pandey, Avanindra Kumar Mishra, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari and Amrit Kumar Tiwari for the Petitioners; C.S.C., Ajay Kumar, Maneesh Pandey, Rahul Shukla, Vindhyawahini Kumar, Rajiv Singh Chauhan, Shobhit Mohan Shukla, J.B.S. Rathour, Shivam Sharma, Neeraj Charasiya, Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Jogendra Nath Verma and Prashant Arora for the Respondents.

Headnote:Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 38 – Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 – Rules 21, 10 – Transfer – Policy of ‘last in first out’ – Validity – Government Order dt. 20.7.2018 and circular dt. 16.8.2018 issued by Government providing that transfer/adjustment of teachers of junior basic schools and senior basic schools shall be made on basis of ‘last in first out’ – To meet out public interest in imparting education to students admitted in academic session in consonance with provisions contained under Act, 2009 and rules framed there under, pupil-teacher ratio and deadline in this is fixed from date of start of session – While issuing Government order and circulars all these provisions ignored by State Government – Hence policy of State Government faulty and shall not fulfill scope to provide free and compulsory education to children and is contrary to Act, 2009 and Rules, 2010 – Government Order dt. 20.7.2018, circular dt. 16.8.2018 and subsequent orders of transfer /adjustment quashed. [Paras 27, 29 and 31]

       Result; Petitions Allowed.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Irshad Ali, J.—Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Sri Dharmendra Kumar Misra, Sri Maneesh Pandey, Sri Syed Azhar Husain, Sri Vijay Dixit, Sri Durga Prasad Shukla, Sri Umesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sri Amit Srivastava, Sri Mohd. Mansoor, Sri Manish Mathur, Sri Anurag Shukla, Sri Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Manjusha Kapil, Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, Sri Deomani Tripathi, Sri O.P. Tiwari, Sri Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Sri Satyaveer Singh, Sri Neeraj Singh, Sri Dileep Kumar Mishra, Sri Akash Dikshit, Sri Pankaj Gupta, Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav “Warsi”, Sri Nirankar Singh, Sri Gyanendra Singh Sikarwar, Sri Sunil Kumar Gupta, Sri Ram Raj, Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, Sri Adarsh Kumar Maurya, Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Sri R.N. Shukla, Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, Sri Rajesh Kumar, Sri Krishna Madhav Shukla, Sri Atul Kumar Yadav, Sri Dharmendra Kumar Maurya, Sri Aniruddha Singh, Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, Sri Dinesh Chandra Tewari, Sri Sarvesh Tripathi, Sri Mohammad Babar Khan, Sri Shashank Singh, Sri Shishir Pradhan, Ms. Deepti Gupta, Sri Atma Ram Mishra, Sri Satendra Pal Singh, Sri Nishant Shukla, Sri Amar Singh, Sri Durga Prasad Shukla, Sri Vinay Misra, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Sri Bajhul Qumar Siddiqui, Sri Raj Deo Singh, Sri Vaibhav Gupta, Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Sri Rajwant Singh, Sri Dinesh Kumar Pushpakar, Sri Arjun Singh Somvanshi, Sri Gyanendra Kumar Pandey, Sri Avanindra Kumar Mishra, Sri Amrit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and to the learned Standing Counsel, Sri Ajay Kumar, and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.

2. To resolve the controversy involved in this bunch of writ petitions, these writ petitions are being decided by means of a common judgment treating Writ Petition No. 25238 (SS) of 2018 to be the leading writ petition.

3. This bunch of writ petitions challenges the condition No. 2(2)(1) and 2(3)(4) of the Government Order dated 20.7.2018 and the circular dated 16.8.2018, issued by respondent No. 3 (contained as Annexures 1 and 7 to the writ petition) with further prayer to quash the list of surplus teachers prepared by the respondents as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition. A further prayer has been made to restrain the respondents from shifting the petitioners by way of adjustment from present place of posting to other schools and to quash the list of the teachers, if any, prepared by the respondents for adjustment of the petitioners in other schools after summoning the original record from the respondents.

4. The factual matrix involved in this bunch of writ petitions is that the petitioners are Assistant Teachers working in Junior and Senior Basic Schools run and managed by the Board of Basic Education. The service conditions of the teachers working in the Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools are governed under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.

5. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted by the Parliament, which was published in the Gazette of India, extra, Part 2 Section 1 on 27.8.2009 and by exercise of power conferred by Section 38 of Act No. 35 of 2009 (for short, “Act of 2009”), the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 have been framed, which were published in the official gazetted of India extra Part 2 on 9.4.2010.

6. Under the aforesaid act and rules, the Government of India made an effort to streamline the basic education from Class I to Class VIII and to streamline the duties of the appropriate Government and local authority to provide free and compulsory elementary education to every child.

7. Act of 2009 provides that within three years from the commencement of the Act, the appropriate Government and local authority shall ensure pupil-teacher ratio, as specified in the Schedule maintained in each school. Sub-section














































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top