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

2021 Supreme(All) 481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Suneeta Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ -A No. 4845, 4571, 4882, 5728, 5914, 6716, 8587, 8595, 6966 of 2021
Decided on : 12-08-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : J.P. Singh, Yadvendra Pratap Singh Counsel
For the Respondent: Durga Singh, Syed Nadeem Ahmad

Headnote:(A) Right to Education Act, 2009 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Education sector - Contractual employment of teaching staff in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Scheme - Contracts for teachers governed by government directives and orders. (Paras 4, 36-40)

(B) Maintainability of writ petitions - Court clarified that while actions of the State are subject to judicial review, private contracts are generally not. Judicial review is permissible where statutory provisions exist or actions lack fairness. (Paras 14, 15, 36)

(C) Termination of contracts - The court held that contractual engagements could not be enforced unless regulated by statute. Appeal to enforce rights must show breach of government policy related to employment. (Paras 40, 43)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were teachers under the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Scheme, challenging non-renewal and downgrading of their contracts. They contended entitlements based on executive directives issued by the State.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the contracts were purely contractual and enforceable based on stipulated qualifications within government orders. Writ petitions were maintainable in limited circumstances but were dismissed on merits.

Issues: The main issues were the enforceability of contracts of personal service in light of government orders and whether the writ was maintainable against non-renewal decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that while public law can bring certain private disputes before it, the specific circumstances must bind the review actions based on government guidelines.

Result: All writ petitions were dismissed except for one which required further consideration.

Table of Content
1. court hears the counsel for both parties. (Para 1 , 2)
2. engagement details under kgbv scheme. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. issues of maintainability and contracts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court's review of executive authority. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. regulatory context and evaluative criteria of employment. (Para 24 , 41 , 42)
6. final verdict of writ petitions. (Para 61)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Yatindra, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sri Harshvardhan Gupta, Sri Ram Vilas Yadav, Sri Amit Shukla, Sri Santosh Kumar, Sri Ashok Kumar, Sri Syed Nadeem Ahmad learned counsels for the Basic Education Officers, Sri Durga Singh who appears for the State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan and Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey learned Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi for the State respondents.

2. This batch of writ petitions have been clubbed and heard for final disposal collectively with the consent of parties.

A. KASTURBA GANDHI BALIKA VIDYALAYA

3. All the petitioners were engaged by the respondents in residential schools established under the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Scheme[KGBV] launched by the Union Government. In August 2004, the Union Government launched a scheme for setting up of residential schools upto the upper primary level for girls belonging predominantly to the SC, ST, OBC and minorities in difficult areas. The scheme provided for the establishment of schools in educationally backward blocks. Priority was to be accorded to the establishment of these schools in areas having a concentration of SC, ST, OBC, minorities, tribal population and where enrollment of girls was found to be lagging. Areas with low female literacy and areas with a large number of small and scattered habitations in which educational facilities were nonexistent were also to be identified for the purposes of establishment of schools under the aforesaid scheme. With effect from 01 April 2008, the criteria for educationally backward block was revised to include those blocks where rural female literacy was below 30% and town/cities having minority concentration. Initially the scheme was run as a separate initiative of the Union Government till it came to be merged with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan[SSA] with effect from 01 April 2007. With the promulgation of the RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT , 2009 [RTE] and the adoption of the framework for implementation of SSA being revised, the scheme and its objectives were revised to bring it in tune and harmony with the right and entitlement of children as envisaged under the RTE. In the State of U.P., the U.P. Education For All[UPEFA] society came to be formed in 1993 to oversee the field of Basic Education. The KGBV scheme is presently being administered by this entity.

B. THE SCHEME AND POLICY DIRECTIVES

4. The Scheme is based on two basic models (i) schools with a hostel for 100 girls and (ii) schools with hostel for 50 girls. Various Government Orders and directives of the Union Government have come to be issued from time to time in order to ensure a uniform implementation of the scheme throughout the country. The aforesaid Government Orders and directives apart from laying down norms for infrastructure and facilities in those residential schools also lay in place various stipulations relating to issues such as curriculum and the appointment of teachers and other staff. In terms of the policy directives the schools are to be managed by a Warden along with a complement of support staff and instructions are to be imparted by full time and part time teachers. For the purposes of the present batch of writ petitions, the directives and orders issued from time to time may be viewed commencing from the Government Order dated 29 July 2013. For the purposes of selection of teaching and non-teaching staff, the aforesaid Government Order pr





            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
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top